From Change to Stability: An Evaluation of Change and Performance at Canada's Office of the Auditor General
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through its audits and recommendations, Canada's Office of the Auditor General (OAG) has promoted financial probity and good governance for over a century.While the OAG's recommendations may possess an inherent value, their full value is realized only through their implementation by government.By investigating OAG recommendation implementation rates, and the OAG's interaction with Parliament, this thesis evaluates recent performance at the OAG.Two research questions are considered: first, has OAG performance changed since 1993; and second, have its interactions with Parliament and government changed over the same period?Have changes in government, or in the interaction between the OAG and Parliament, affected the OAG's work or Parliament's investigation of its audits?The OAG's performance is considered from various angles, including an assessment of OAG data to quantify recommendation implementation rates and interactions with Parliament over time.Numerous stakeholder interviews are also utilized to provide a well-rounded qualitative perspective on these questions.Canada.Office of the Auditor General.2002.Performance Report for the period ending 31 March 2002.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".