MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098088436

Workshop 6: Ethical Leadership in the Context of Globalization The New Public Management and Democracy in Canada: A Recipe for Scandal?

2007· article· en· W7098088436 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLeadership, Human Resources, Global Affairs
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyContext (archaeology)LegitimacyPoliticsPublic sectorGovernment (linguistics)Public valueGlobalizationValue (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The February 2006 national election in Canada was driven by two political scandals more than by a positive sense of what needs to be accomplished in Canada. These two scandals are the events that led to the resignation of David Dingwall as President of the Royal Canadian Mint and the Sponsorship Program scandal that lead to the Gomery Inquiry. This paper examines these two scandals, both financial in nature, to determine if they may have been driven by a shift from traditional democratic, public-sector values to the market-based, private-sector values of the New Public Management. In these specific cases it would appear that the NPM played little role in these scandals, although the model of contracting out for government services bears some responsibility for the Sponsorship scandal. Ultimately this paper examines one piece in a complex web that has led to a decline in popular support for governmental institutions throughout Canada. The deeper question is, therefore, “Is the value conflict between NPM and traditional public sector values part of the ongoing legitimacy crisis that has led to calls for democratic reform throughout Canada?” Please do not cite or quote this conference paper without explicit permission from the author. 2 THE NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND DEMOCRACY

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 topicLeadership, Human Resources, Global AffairsFrench-language works237,207