Collaborative public sector innovation in a post-NPM era: a design perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the recent advancements in the literature on Collaborative Public Sector Innovation (CPSI), several weaknesses persist, particularly regarding our understanding of CPSI as a policy design issue. This article addresses the complex nature of CPSI in a post-NPM world, looking at a Canadian childcare innovation project and highlighting the complex interaction of collaboration, external pressures, and public service design. Our analysis recognizes diversity as a vital component of CPSI, highlighting that different methods exist for implementing and conceptualizing this collaboration. A key factor for the success of CPSI is the ability of organizations to strategically connect innovation with design processes. We emphasize that the likelihood of successful innovation increases when organizations reconsider project design and adopt an outcome-oriented strategy, rather than an output-focused process that fails to engage with broader system thinking and design principles. However, this does not automatically mean that the broadest collaboration and co-design approach is followed.
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 | 0.056 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".