The Long March from Evaluation to Accreditation: Quebec’s New “Government Management Framework”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article argues that the introduction of performance measurement should be seen as part of a larger trend towards the accreditation of public agencies and private business organizations. Because of its obvious similarities with accreditation, performance measurement in central government ministries can be assessed by examining the effects of accreditation in those areas where it has already been introduced. Accreditation systems are often seen as more realistic alternatives to program evaluation. In Quebec, for example, junior colleges have long been subject to a system of program evaluation administered by the Commission d’évaluation de l’enseignement collégial (CÉEC). The CÉEC has recently announced that it will abandon the field of program evaluation, in order to engage in a new form of “institutional evaluation.” This was done at the explicit request of the Federation of Junior Colleges, which has long been opposed to the system of program evaluation administered by the CÉEC. The junior colleges, or CÉGEPs (Collèges d’enseignement général et professionnel), see accreditation as a way of reducing competition among junior colleges. They argue that the CÉEC should help the colleges improve their performance, but should refrain from distinguishing between good performance and bad performance. When a college cannot meet the accreditation requirements, the accreditation process should be suspended. Viewed in this light, systems of accreditation and performance measurement can be seen as tools for reducing the accountability of public agencies to government and to public opinion. Whereas program evaluation assumes the possibility of public debate about programs being evaluated, accreditation ensures that the information necessary for public debate will be kept confidential.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".