MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964883772 · doi:10.26190/unsworks/20670

The Roles of Independent Legislative Fiscal Institutions: a Multidisciplinary Analysis

2018· dissertation· en· W6964883772 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureMultidisciplinary approachInstitutionFoundation (evidence)Politics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis approaches the question of the roles that can be fulfilled by Independent Legislative Fiscal Institutions, and it does so in a multidisciplinary manner, through six independent but logically-connected research papers. Independent Legislative Fiscal Institutions (IFIs) represent an institution of ever greater practitioner and academic interest, but a fuller understanding of their roles, and therefore their purpose, is left wanting due to the dispersion of analysis surrounding them across three separate literatures: economics, political science, and governance. Each literature approaches the question of the roles of IFIs in a tangential manner as part of some broader inquiry, and they provide rationales for these fiscal institutions steeped in arguments specific to these literatures. However, there is still a need to validate those literature-specific arguments through further evidence; and the claim that drives this thesis is that, only through a fuller and multidisciplinary synthesis of these literatures, along with the incorporation of a new literature (public administration), can progress be made in contextualizing the roles of IFIs in a comprehensive manner. The need for such an inquiry arises because, given that there is scant explicit consideration of the roles of IFIs, the ambiguities in their roles can and does incite severe budgetary conflicts. As such, the thesis develops multiple case studies to typologize the suggested roles, including: the United States, Canada, Australia, Fiji, and Iraq. In particular, the thesis identifies two types of roles for IFIs, as either (1) mechanistic-costing or (2) normative-advisory, and musters public value theory (from the public administration literature) to do so. Using the same public value lens, the thesis then proceeds to outline the limitations of its typologized roles, by indicating where the ingredients for both roles may be possible and yet where IFIs can still fall short of fulfilling them. Beyond that, the thesis aims to develop an understanding of special, context-specific roles for IFIs that can emerge in unique budgeting contexts, including as a ‘coordination mechanism’ within the broader accountability architecture (using Fiji), and as a vehicle for jumpstarting accountability in the budget process where fiscal architecture has been destroyed (using Iraq). The thesis thereby makes a series of multidisciplinary research contributions by (1) identifying the three relevant literatures that tangentially explore the roles of IFIs in terms of their localized (single-discipline) logic, (2) synthesizing their findings to provide an overarching context for the study of possible institutional roles, (3) introducing a new literature (public administration) that fills an important gap in understanding these institutions, (4) advancing two debates within public administration using IFIs (‘public value theory’ and the ‘politics-administration dichotomy’), (5) typologizing two roles for IFIs, and then delineating their limitations, (6) analysing two other unique roles that these institutions can fulfil in specific contexts (‘coordination mechanism and ‘ab initio fiscal body’), (7) highlighting practitioner interests in designing and successfully operating IFIs, and (8) identifying future areas of research that can build upon the multidisciplinary approach that this thesis develops.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.020
Scholarly communication0.0190.020
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia)Same topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207