Different ways of analysing the effects of public-private partnership in organizing public services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public-private partnership has been presented as an opportunity to improve the input and output legitimacy of global environmental governance. Functional decentralization can generate a considerable improvement in the quality of life of the population and in the functioning of a city and its services. We reported in this paper some conclusions regarding externalisation, public-private partnership and improving the quality of life of the correct organizing of public services. We exemplified the well practice examples from Canadian Experience, Northern Europe Experience, UK private sector participation in Governance, and the Romanian case. After an important qualitative analyse of all these results we established if the New Public Management ideas are correct, or not. Some of the results contradict the New Public Management ideas: mainly that private sector participation through public-private partnerships in the delivery of public services will inevitably lead to a better use of scarce resources, and consequentially to lower user prices and higher quality goods and services. Our empirical analysis demonstrates that user prices have a stronger relationship with the organizational costs than with property or the adopted management model in the delivery of public services. The article offers a view of understanding that any solution to rebalancing budgets and world markets or to improving jobs and incomes will involve the public sector will be key issues for all comparative political economists studying the fundamental conflicts over income, equality and jobs in the years to come
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".