Translating, resisting, or escalating government programs? Accounting at the intersection of centrally imposed programs and local responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the role of accounting in the recursive processes of continuous adjustment to programs that emerge when programs are imposed by central government on local government. Focusing on the Italian context and adopting the conceptual lens of governmentality, our study contributes to the extant literature by highlighting the role of accounting in the power dynamics and transactional realities at the intersection between the governors and the governed. In doing so, it considers how accounting can shape plural local government conducts and counter‐conducts and how this, in turn, affects programs imposed centrally. It also sheds light on the transactional realities inherent in multiple, layered forms of central disciplining power and how this plays out to recursively redefine central discipline and local autonomy. The study highlights the importance of considering the different ways in which power is enacted and resisted through accounting in governmentality studies. By taking a pluralist and dynamic view of the ways in which programs are implemented, the study reveals multiple local translations and outcomes, as well as the underlying power dynamics at play.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".