MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391646343 · doi:10.1111/capa.12551

The public, the pandemic, and the public service: The case of Alberta

2024· article· en· W4391646343 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jared J. Wesley, Savannah Ribeiro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLegitimacyPandemicPoliticsPublic serviceGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsPolitical scienceDemocracyPublic administrationIntermediaryPublic healthPublic trustPublic opinionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)BusinessLawMedicineMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Public servants play a vital role as intermediaries between policymakers and the public, offering expert advice on public policy and implementing ministerial decisions for the common good. Given that most Canadians interact with non‐partisan, professional bureaucrats, public sentiment towards public servants becomes a crucial indicator of the health of the country's democracy. Trust levels serve as a barometer: high trust aligns with a well‐functioning system, while low trust may challenge government legitimacy and its ability to fulfill democratic mandates. This study explores confidence levels in the public service in Alberta amid the COVID‐19 pandemic, using data from the April 2022 Viewpoint Alberta survey. Our findings illuminate diverse attitudes towards public servants amidst significant social, economic, and political upheaval.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207