Gestão por resultados da administração pública: a experiência do estado do Ceará comparada ao modelo canadense
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study has the objective of analyzing the elements of Ceará’s Model in comparison with the \nCanadian Model. The methodology used was a bibliography survey of the Results-Based \nManagement (RBM) literature, followed by a document survey regarding both models as well as \ninterviews with Canadian and Ceará managers. It presents that since 1987 the State of Ceará has \nbeen redesigning its management model in order to reach sustainable economic and social \ndevelopment. The study reveals that, in this process, Ceará researched for best practices of public \nadministrations, being the RBM Canadian Model chosen as the reference for the design and \nimplementation of Ceará ‘s new model in 2004. The study characterizes Canadian and Ceará’s \nmodels and does a comparative analysis of the two. Results show that they have the same concepts \nof planning policy and program with focus in results but they have differences regarding services, staff, \nadministration, accountability, risk management, strategic governance, performance, learning and \nvalues. It is demonstrated that perceptions of Canadian and Ceará Managers reflect their culture and \nthat the RBM concepts had been absorbed by the first ones but not completely by the last ones. The \nconclusion is that, excellent standards of efficiency, efficacy and effectiveness, demands the breakage \nof bureaucratic culture, whose process of changes is not easy or fast, and goes through the \nredefinition of values, qualification and evaluation of the public employee, a greater dissemination of \nRBM, as well as, the involvement of the population in demanding and following government results.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".