A Stewardship Approach to Policy Practice and Capacity Renewal in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of Canada's most significant public administration challenges is ensuring the public service possesses the capacity and modern practices needed for effective policymaking. This article argues that Canada's policy renewal efforts have been hampered by a lack of focused and coherent public service reform more generally. Informed by international best practice and an appreciation for Canada's unique public administration context and history, I argue that Canada must adopt a stewardship approach. I provide five actionable recommendations targeted at renewing and modernizing policy capacity. These include: creating a new unit responsible for managing public service renewal to be headed by a new deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, mandating regular systematic reviews of public service policy capacity, expanding the substantive focus of the Clerk's annual reports, developing an enterprise‐wide training strategy for policy professionals, and standardizing modern policymaking practices by embedding them in formal policymaking processes and instruments.
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 | 0.082 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".