Alternative Mechanisms of Service Delivery : Blue Print for Promoting AMSD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Report presents a plan for \n improving service delivery in regional governments using a \n set of strategies that are commonly found in an approach \n described as 'Alternative Mechanisms of Service \n Delivery' (AMSD). The report has been prepared as part \n of a contract between the Decentralization Support Facility \n (DSF) and Hickling Corporation of Canada. This report aims \n to outline the most important programs/activities that \n central government might undertake to help regional \n governments systematically improve service delivery, which \n after all, is one of the key objectives of the \n decentralization policy. It hopefully provides the basis for \n a system of improving service delivery. The objectives in \n relation to promoting AMSD within regional governments are: \n assistance to government in the rationalization of different \n institutional arrangements for the delivery of sub-national \n public services; and aid in the development and \n implementation of new (contracting) methods for service \n delivery. This final section is in recognition that planning \n is nothing without good implementation and learning from experience.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".