Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public services that satisfy the interest of the community in contemporary conditions are provided by administrative organizations, market entities or an administrative organization and a private entity together through various arrangements, all depending on the generally accepted conception of the role of the state in public administration. Some of the countries to be analyzed went much deeper into management than other countries because governments realized that they did not have to provide goods and services to citizens if they could not guarantee that services would be provided fairly, which contributed to the rapid and effective public service reform. The state (administration) becomes (remains) only the coordinator of public policies that ensures fairness in providing services to citizens, and ceases to be its undisputed immediate executor. In this paper, the author analyzes the impact of new public management on the privatization of public services in the United States and in Westminster countries (Canada, United Kingdom and Australia). Private provision of public services has long been a part of efficient and effective governance in these countries. In the midst of new public management reforms that have spread around the world since the 1980s and beyond, there is a growing interest in private governance and ownership of key public services at all levels of government. A key question for governments considering privatizing public services is whether private firms provide higher quality services than their public sector partners. Compared to the performance of private sector organizations, the quality of public service delivery is difficult to measure and monitor in today's context. For these reasons, it is sometimes thought that private firms may not have the necessary capabilities to deal with all elements of effective public service management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".