Implementation of the Principles of Good Governance on the National Level outside the EU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this chapter, the focus is on the implementation of good governance norms in three countries outside Europe: Australia, Canada, and South Africa. Relating to the implementation of the good governance principles in Australia, we start with the historical background and good governance approaches in the country. There is a classical rule of law and separation of powers but also new administrative law reforms and including the position of the fourth power. Important is the role of the Ombudsman and the relation between good governance and human rights. Especially the principles of participation, transparency and accountability have been worked out. The idea of integrity goes beyond matters of simple ‘legality’. Important is the influx of integrity commissions, ombudsmen and means of judicial and merit review. Although Canada does not have specific legislation that explicitly outlines good governance principles, it is clear that Canada has put them into practice. The Constitution guarantees Canadian citizens ‘peace, order, and good government’. The rule of law provides that every person must abide by the law and Section 15 guarantees equality rights to Canadian citizens. The judiciary is also a source for good governance. Finally, administrative officials are held accountable by judicial review, section 24 of the Charter, and with the ombudsmen. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement. South Africa has extensively integrated good governance principles into its legal system, but faces the same problems that other developing countries in Africa have. Thus, although South Africa has a sound legal foundation for good governance, lessons can still be learned on how to translate these legal norms into practical application.
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 | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".