MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126095416

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

2015· article· en· W3126095416 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William B. P. Robson, Colin Busby

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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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 score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0250.007
Scholarly communication0.0210.005
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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