The Politics of Public Management: The Hrdc Audit of Grants and Contributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
David Good's The Politics of Public Management is a 'textbook case' in public administration; it deals with the events and circumstances surrounding the scandal of the grants and contributions audit at Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC). More specifically, Good argues that the HRDC scandal or crisis was the result of a complex series of factors, which transformed a fixable administrative matter into media headlines alleging that the government had lost one billion dollars. The author further contextualizes this scandal by analyzing the dichotomies and contradictions inherent in public administration and supporting the larger premise that certain trade-offs must be made in the administration of any public organization.Good skillfully weaves together into a coherent and comprehensible whole both theoretical (or conceptual) and practical considerations. He draws on current scholarship throughout his analysis and captures for the reader the nuances and complexities of public administration. The first and only extensive critical examination to date of the events surrounding the scandal at HRDC, this text offers an original and groundbreaking contribution to current scholarship on public administration and management in Canada
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".