Public-Private Partnerships in Alberta, Canada: Towards the Institutionalization of Policy Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The deployment of public-private partnerships (P3s) in Alberta, Canada has stalled following the suspension of the program in 2016. While P3s have become increasingly popular, the dynamics of P3 institutionalization remain unclear and overlooked. In response to Casady et al.'s (2018) call, this study aims to investigate the nature and extent of P3 institutionalization using Alberta's program as an effective longitudinal case study. This study finds that Alberta's P3 program, facing the pressures of limited funding availability and a previously failed partnership attempt, was initiated as an experimental effort designed to fill a serious infrastructure gap and motivated by existential political interests, but without the necessary institutional and organizational anchors to ensure program stability, permanency and continuity. Furthermore, Alberta's P3 program has become the object of ideological contestation between recent successive governments. Following Johnson et al. (2006), this study contends that Alberta's P3 program has stalled at the “diffusion stage” and unable to transition to the “general validation stage” needed for its widespread acceptance as an institutionalized model of infrastructure delivery
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".