Governance and Accountability in Reshaping Public Services: Open Challenges and Wicked Problems of the 21st Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Issues of accountability are ubiquitous in public governance. Accountability connects with other concerns like legitimacy, power, citizen engagement, and new modes of service production. These issues and connections become all the more poignant given the evolving landscape of public services amidst the backdrop of 21st‐century poly‐crises. The pieces in this special issue explore these dynamics, particularly concerning shifting governing modes, contractual arrangements, performance management, and digitalization. New service delivery models introduce complexities beyond efficiency, impacting power dynamics and stakeholder interests. In this introductory piece, the editors preview these issues, highlight the enduring questions from the literature informing this special issue, and summarize the 14 pieces. The editors end by reflecting on accountability's importance through discussions of accountability for neoliberalism and performance measurement, contracting out, liberty, democracy, social equity, and human‐centered public governance.
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 | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".