MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125735138

Two Sets of Books at City Hall? Grading the Financial Reports of Canada’s Cities

2016· article· en· W3125735138 on OpenAlex
Benjamin Dachis, William B. P. Robson, Jennifer M Tsao

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
KeywordsRevenueAccrualFinancePublicationPensionGovernment (linguistics)BusinessFiscal yearAccountingEconomicsEarningsAdvertising
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In nearly all Canada’s larger cities, obscure financial reports – notably inconsistent presentations of key numbers in budgets and end-of-year financial reports – hamper legislators, ratepayers and voters seeking to hold their municipal governments to account. Simple questions like “How much does your municipal government plan to spend this year?” or “How much did it spend last year?” are hard or impossible for a non-expert citizen or councilor to answer. By presenting net rather than gross figures in their budgets, most cities understate their revenue and spending and obscure key activities. The differences in accounting methods in most cities’ budgets as compared to the presentations of their financial results are large, and have real-world consequences. By using cash rather than accrual accounting, cities exaggerate the costs of investments in infrastructure, hide the cost of pension obligations, and make it hard to match the costs and benefits of municipal activities to taxpayers and citizens. Moreover, many cities present their budgets late, after significant money has already been committed or spent, do not publish their financial results in a timely way, and bury key numbers deep in their reports. This report grades the financial presentations of major cities in Canada in their most recent budgets and financial reports. Toronto and Winnipeg are at the bottom, with Fs. In addition to approving their budgets many weeks after their fiscal years had started, these cities provide little information in reader-friendly form. More happily, the cities of Brampton, Calgary, Halifax, Halton and Vancouver garner higher marks. Our key recommendations are that municipal governments should present their annual budgets on the same accounting basis as their financial statements, and that budgets should show gross, not net, revenue and spending figures. Budgets should use accrual accounting, recording revenues and expenses as the relevant activities occur over time. Provincial governments exercise decisive control over cities, so those that impede accrual-based budgets at the municipal level should stop doing so. Now is an opportune time for this change: major reviews of the acts governing municipalities are nearly complete in Alberta and Ontario. Even in cases where a province is the impediment, cities can release the relevant information on their own – and they should.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.243 · 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