A Holistic approach to accountability: Measuring outcomes of economic development funding in northern Canadian Aboriginal communities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Government funding targeted at the economic development of remote Aboriginal communities in northern Canada has historically taken a narrow view of accountability. While traditional financial reporting obligations invariably fall on recipients of government funding, this process gives little thought to broader notions of reciprocal accountability and the views of both providers and recipients of funding. The present study used a combination of constructivist Grounded Theory and Aboriginal methodologies in interviews primarily with funding recipients and providers to draw on participants’ (n=34) local knowledge of the socio-cultural factors influencing economic development in Fort Liard, Northwest Territories, Canada. The results of this study demonstrate accountability processes based solely on financial reporting do not adequately reflect the complex social, cultural, economic and environmental outcomes that emerge from government-funded projects. A holistic approach to economic development accountability is needed to properly assess and measure the impacts of government funding in remote Aboriginal communities.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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 it