MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126095416

By the Numbers: The Fiscal Accountability of Canada's Senior Governments, 2015

2015· article· en· W3126095416 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 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueAccountabilityGovernment (linguistics)AuditFiscal yearPublic administrationBusinessPolitical scienceDemocracyQuality (philosophy)AccountingFinancePolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Control over public money is fundamental to democratic government, and presents huge challenges to legislators and taxpayers. Getting the information needed to answer simple questions such as how planned spending in the upcoming year compares to actual results in the prior year can be hard, and ensuring that governments treat their budget targets seriously is an never-ending task. 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 decade. Its survey of the financial reports reveals some good news: more governments now prepare their budgets on the same basis as their end-of-year public accounts, making comparisons over time easier for their citizens. While these improvements mean that more governments earn high marks for their reporting, some jurisdictions still present numbers in which such key figures as total spending and total revenue are obscure. Inconsistent presentation of numbers to legislators, late reporting, and qualified audits are too common. A major aim of this report is to celebrate the relatively transparent reporting found in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, and in Ontario and Ottawa, and encourage other jurisdictions to raise their game. When it comes to the degree to which results match intentions, the survey also finds some good news. In the second half of the past decade, the spending and revenues reported by Canada’s senior governments at the end of each fiscal year have tended to match the projections in the budget at the beginning of the year more closely than in the first half of the decade. That said, federal, provincial and territorial governments tend to overshoot their budget targets by large amounts. Over the decade, Canada’s senior governments overshot their spending targets by some $48 billion in total. They also brought in far more revenue than anticipated in budgets, and while caution in forecasting can explain some of this overshoot, the survey finds a disturbing tendency for revenue and spending surprises, up or down, to occur together – more suggestive of opportunism than good fiscal management. Improving control over public funds in Canada will require two things. Legislators and the public must demand more transparent, timely and accurate reporting of governments’ fiscal plans and results. And legislators must use their powers over appropriation more effectively. Votes on budgets are votes of confidence that determine whether governments stand or fall. Only when legislators ensure that budget plans are meaningful do they hold governments accountable for their use of public funds.

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 score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.267 · 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