Malaysian Local Authorities: Are They Transparent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transparency among the local authorities is crucial as local authorities are expected to perform their stewardship roles to meet the demand of their stakeholders. Due to information asymmetry between the local authorities and citizens, there is a tendency for citizens to have unfavourable perceptions towards local authorities’ activities. Literature suggests that transparent information will mitigate this issue. Thus, the study seeks to investigate the level of transparency of Malaysian local authorities by examining 19 of them covering the periods from 2015 to 2019. Available information from the website and the local authorities annual reports were obtained. Adopting agency theory and stewardship theory, the study suggests that the level of transparency in the form of non-financial information transparency, citizen transparency and transparency easiness among the Malaysian local authorities is regarded to be high. It indicates that the information asymmetry between the local authorities and the stakeholders is generally minimised. However, this study highlights that the transparency level in the form of financial information still needs to be improved, and local authorities should be more transparent in disclosing such information. Besides providing insights into local authorities' transparency, this study is beneficial to local authorities and regulators in establishing policies; and citizens and stakeholders in assessing the transparency level of local authorities. Future research should consider factors that influence transparency among local authorities in Malaysia. A comparison between local authorities should also be made to find the best practices for stimulating transparency in local authorities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".