MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7038532629

Implementing New Technologies to Reduce Operating Costs in the City of Palo Alto: An Exploratory Study

2007· article· en· W7038532629 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueStaffingPaymentGovernment (linguistics)Exploratory researchPublic sectorService (business)Process (computing)Quarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most recent recession has left government agencies in California looking for creative ways to maximize their budgets. There are several fiscal challenges that have contributed greatly to this significant downturn. Proposition 13 in the late 1970's limited local government's ability to increase property taxes, State takeaway of property taxes, the escalating cost of pension and health care benefits and growing need to fix aging infrastructure. It is not uncommon to hear about public agencies cutting resources and staff to stay within budget leaving executive managers the task of recreating their business processes to maintain similar levels of services that their communities are accustomed to receiving.\nThe City of Palo Alto is no exception; it is difficult to continue providing similar levels of service when revenues are not keeping up with expenditures. This paper will discuss potential opportunities for the City of Palo Alto to realize efficiencies in utilities payment processing by comparing other public agencies including their use of technological tools and the contracting out of payment processing services. The process will include conducting a survey of other public sector agencies to determine if they process payments in-house or outsource, measuring the number of utilities and volume processed, staffing levels, and identifying efficiencies experienced. The research will also include interviews with Revenue Collections staff to obtain their observations and ideas on adding efficiencies or tools to assist in the process. The research will include a financial analysis including reviewing prior year program expenses and estimated future costs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomyFrench-language works237,207