Accountability and financial oversight reform: the case of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Conservative Government came to power in 2006 on a platform of accountability. One aspect of this platform was the creation of a Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO). The PBO was intended to contribute to a higher level of accountability in government budgeting. This thesis seeks to explain why the PBO was created, what it does, and contemplates whether the PBO has been able to help Parliamentarians hold the Executive to account. In addition, the thesis questions how the PBO itself is held accountable. Finally the study considers potential changes to the PBO and what might become of the PBO after its conspicuous first leader Kevin Page passes from the scene. Minor changes to the PBO’s legislation and placement within the institutions of government may improve the results of the PBO. However, the PBO’s effectiveness, independence and accountability will still depend on the office’s structural characteristics and leadership.
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 | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".