MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122486332

Numbers You can Trust? The Fiscal Accountability of Canada’s Senior Governments, 2017

2017· article· en· W3122486332 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityTransparency (behavior)RevenueTaxpayerGovernment (linguistics)AuditTreasuryLegislatureBusinessFinancePublic administrationAccountingPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadians entrust their governments with major responsibilities, and pay taxes and underwrite borrowing to fund them. Financial reports are a vital tool for understanding governments’ financial plans and activities. Over the past 15 years, federal, provincial and territorial governments have done much to improve the transparency of their reports, and most of them have come closer to delivering on their budget promises. Yet too many continue to present opaque numbers, fail to satisfy their legislative auditors, take too long to present budgets or report, and spend far more than they budgeted. This latest edition of the C.D. Howe Institute’s annual report on the fiscal accountability of Canada’s senior governments assesses the quality of their financial information, and their success or failure in achieving their budgetary goals over the past 15 years. In looking at the quality of governments’ financial reporting, it asks whether an intelligent and motivated non-expert – a citizen, taxpayer or legislator – can get valid, timely and readily understood figures for total revenue and spending in the budget each government presents at the beginning of the year, and in the financial statements released with its public accounts at the end of the year. Alberta and New Brunswick earn the top scores for the quality and timeliness of their budgets and public accounts, with the federal government and British Columbia also doing well. Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, though not in the top tier, have improved markedly. Quebec and Prince Edward Island do relatively poorly among the provinces, and Northwest Territories and Nunavut also present figures that our idealized reader would struggle to find and interpret. On the question of accuracy in hitting budget targets, the overall record is one of significant overshoots of both spending and revenue. On average, over all governments and all 15 years, governments spent 2.3 percent more than budgeted, which cumulates to a remarkable $69 billion. The Prairie provinces and the territories recorded the worst overruns; Ontario and Quebec did much better. Over the same period, revenues also overshot projections by 2.3 percent annually, cumulating to $95 billion more than budgeted. Although the overshoots tended to get smaller over the 15 years, a suspicious pattern of in-year spending “surprises” coinciding with in-year revenue “surprises” suggests less than prudent management of public funds. Legislators and Canadians generally should push senior governments to produce timelier, more transparent and reliable financial information, and should use that information to hold governments to account – at budget time, and throughout the fiscal year.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it