¿Soluciones innovadoras o nuevos dogmas? cinco debates necesarios sobre la nueva gestión pública
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advocates of the so-called New Public Management (NPM) argue that a revolution is taking place which will radically alter public management as a discipline. Many of their ideas are currently being applied in several countries, among which are the United States, England and New Zealand. As well, for many multilateral organizations, such as the OECD and the World Bank - to name only two of the more enthusiastic - these ideas are the spearhead of reform within specific governments. In this article, the author examines these dilemmas which are the source of 5 important debates that need to take place: 1. accountability or innovation 2. participation or technical decision-making, 3. equity or market, 4. problem solving or programs management, and 5. leadership or "institutionality."
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 | 0.037 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".