MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122488966

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

2016· article· en· W3122488966 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William B. P. Robson, Colin Busby

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0270.008
Scholarly communication0.0210.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueC.D. Howe Institute CommentarySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207