The politics of public money : spenders, guardians, priority setters, and financial watchdogs inside the Canadian government
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public money is one of the primary currencies of influence for politicians and public servants. It affects the standards by which they undertake the nation's business and it impacts on the standard of living of the nation's citizens. The Politics of Public Money examines the extent to which the Canadian federal budgetary process is shifting from one based on a bilateral relationship between departmental spenders and central guardians to one based on a more complex, multilateral relationship involving a variety of players. In this innovative study, David A. Good examines this shift in terms of a broader societal change from an 'old village,' conditioned by old norms of behaviour, to a 'new town,' which brings with it new ideas about how public money should be managed and spent. Organized into four parts, the book opens with 'The Changing Politics of Public Money,' which sets out a revised and expanded framework for analysing the politics and management of public money. Part 2, 'The Public Money Players,' looks at the motivations, interdependence, and independence of the four budget players. The third part, 'The Public Money Processes,. deals with the central functions of budgeting - determining fiscal aggregates, making budget allocations, and ensuring effective financial management. Finally, 'New Prospects for Public Money,' looks ahead to the future and considers ways to strengthen the interaction among the players, and in so doing, improve the politics and management of public money. An insightful and incisive study of the changing budgetary process, The Politics of Public Money examines the promises and pitfalls of budgetary reform and sheds new light on the role insiders play in influencing government spending.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".