Seen but not partisan: Changing expectations of public servants in Westminster systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has been written about the changing role of unelected public servants in Westminster systems of government and their relationship with elected officials and the public. However, there are no studies comparing how these three groups perceive the role, and what they expect from public servants. This article provides the findings from three surveys of public servants, politicians and the public in Canada to assess how they view the role of the public servant and how this compares to different conceptions in the academic literature. The study finds that all three groups support the principles of ministerial responsibility and non-partisanship but do not believe that public servants should be anonymous and free from public scrutiny. This raises the question of whether some aspects of the traditional public servant role can be altered while keeping others in place and suggests that advocates for altering the role of the public servant will be most successful if they focus on certain aspects while preserving others. Points for Practitioners: The principles of ministerial responsibility and public service non-partisanship are supported by the public, politicians, and public servants themselves.There is a desire among these three groups for public servants to become less anonymous, face more public scrutiny and engage more with external actors.The public and politicians' expectations surrounding public servants' political activities are still unclear, although a large majority of public servants believe they can be politically active outside of work.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".