Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing intensity and complexity of public service has spurred policy reform efforts across the globe, many featuring attempts to promote more collaborative government. Collaboration in Public Service Delivery sheds light on these efforts, analysing and reconceptualising the major types of collaboration in public service delivery through a governance lens. \n \nFeaturing careful analysis with a global scope, this book unpacks the concept of collaborative service delivery and its practice, drawing from the fields of public policy, public administration, and management. Chapters by leading authors in these areas address service delivery arrangements including co-production, co-management, consultations, contracting-out, commissioning and certification. With a keen focus on conditions that are critical for the success of such collaborative arrangements, as well as their different pathways and pitfalls, the authors suggest ways to improve the analytical, managerial and political capacities needed for successful collaboration in public service delivery. \n \nThis timely and comprehensive book is useful for students at all levels interested in public policy, governance, administration and management, as well as researchers investigating the governance of collaborative service delivery. Policymakers and practitioners working to re-evaluate and improve public service provision, especially, will also benefit from its insightful discussions of the conditions and mechanisms under which collaborative arrangements operate and fail or succeed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it