Public value and procedural policy instrument specifications in “design for service”
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strokosch and Osborne and others have recently argued the essence of effective service delivery in and by government increasingly involves the re-orientation of top-down service delivery toward enhanced co-design and co-creation. This new emphasis on what Strokosch and Osborne term designing and managing “for” services is seen to be increasingly replacing or augmenting an older emphasis on these tasks in the design “of” services. Analyzing and managing service design and delivery in this way, however, requires a steady eye to be maintained on the different ways in which “public value” is generated through each service process and upon the different kinds of policy tools useful in each activity. This paper expands and develops this thinking and the research and practice agenda around this emergent “designing for service” paradigm. It does so by focusing on the nature and types of substantive and procedural policy tools used in these efforts and especially upon a shift in emphasis toward the better understanding of the micro-level specifications of the procedural instruments used in management and design “for” services.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it