Improving Interactions: Public Sector Reform and Parliamentary Committees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A well‐functioning policy process requires a responsible public service that supports the government and implements its decisions, and a representative legislature that holds the executive to account for policy decisions and actions. Reform of either the public sector or Parliament alone is insufficient to ensure that the relationship between the two bodies works to the benefit of Canadians as intended. This article explores that relationship using committees as a focal point given their centrality to the operation of the policy system. It begins with a discussion of the role of the two bodies in the policy process and criteria for assessing any potential reforms, followed by a brief discussion of recent attempts at reform and their positive and negative lessons. We conclude by identifying three key reform options for the public sector and parliament to improve their interaction in this vital, yet often overlooked, part of the policy process.
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 | 0.086 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".