MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122488966

Controlling the Public Purse: The Fiscal Accountability of Canada’s Senior Governments

2016· article· en· W3122488966 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 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityTransparency (behavior)RevenueTaxpayerGovernment (linguistics)BusinessAuditStewardship (theology)Public administrationFinanceFiscal yearAccountingEconomicsEconomic policyPolitical sciencePoliticsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With governments playing such massive roles in Canada’s economy and Canadians’ lives, we need transparency and accountability in fiscal policy as much as we need it anywhere. Over the past 15 years, Canadian governments have done much to improve their reporting, and stewardship, of public money. Yet major gaps remain, and the astonishing amounts by which revenue and spending have exceeded the amounts approved by legislators at budget time over the period show that failures of accountability have major real-world consequences. This latest edition of the C.D. Howe Institute’s annual report on the fiscal accountability of Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments assesses the quality of financial information these governments present, and looks at their success or failure in achieving their budgetary goals over the past 15 years. It measures the quality of financial reporting by a number of criteria. The key question is whether an intelligent and motivated non-expert – a citizen, taxpayer or legislator – could find valid consolidated numbers for 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. The top presentation marks go to Alberta and Saskatchewan, with Ontario not far behind. British Columbia and New Brunswick also earn high marks for consistent and clear presentations, but auditor reservations push them out of the top tier. The federal government provides reliable numbers, but its budgets do not display them prominently, and the spending estimates members of parliament review are on an incompatible basis of accounting. As for success or failure in hitting budget targets, the dominant theme of the 15-year period is major overshoots of both spending and revenue. Cumulatively, Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments spent some $69 billion more than projected, with the Prairie provinces and the territories showing the biggest over-runs relative to the size of their budgets. Over the same period, revenues overshot budget projections by an even larger amount: $118 billion. More encouragingly, comparing the overshoots over the period shows some improvements: smaller misses generally, and less tendency for in-year revenue “surprises” to be accompanied by in-year spending “surprises.” Legislators and Canadians generally should insist on better financial information from governments, and use that information to hold governments to a higher standard when it comes to hitting their budget targets. Canada’s senior governments can improve their financial reporting and their adherence to targets, and legislators and voters should hold them accountable for doing so.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.247 · 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