Transparency, Accountability, and Accessibility: A Comparative Analysis of the Publication of Transition Documents through the Context of British Columbia, Manitoba, and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis sheds light on transparency, accountability, and accessibility efforts through the lens of British Columbia’s recently published transition documents. Using a multiple case study approach, with cases being the Government of British Columbia’s British Columbia’s website and published transition documents from 2020 and 2022, this research discusses similarities and differences between three of British Columbia’s ministry’s transition binders and compares findings to government transition documents and websites in the Government of Canada and Manitoba. Ultimately, one of the key findings from this research is that British Columbia meets more of the transparency, accountability, and accessibility criteria outlined in this thesis than the Governments of Manitoba and Canada. The research finds that the Government of British Columbia makes it easier for citizens to hold their governments accountable than the Governments of Canada and Manitoba. Regarding accessibility and transparency, British Columbia performs well: on par with the Government of Canada and better than the Government of Manitoba. Additionally, ministry-specific findings in British Columbia prove that ministries may be given some level of independence when supporting these initiatives. The thesis also identifies the areas where British Columbia has the potential to improve these metrics when publicizing its binders.
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 | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.046 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".