MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W914108766 · doi:10.1177/073491490603000203

E-Government and Local Governance in Canada: An Examination of Front Line Challenges and Federal Tensions

2006· article· en· W914108766 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Administration Quarterly · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Government Finance and Decentralization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFront linePublic administrationCorporate governanceGovernment (linguistics)Local governmentFront (military)Political scienceLine (geometry)LawManagementEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to examine the impacts of e-government in Canada on both inter-governmental relations and local governance. The rationale for such an examination stems from the emergence, over the past decade of two parallel discourses in public sector and governance reform: first, e-government as primarily a set of national and provincial strategies for public sector reforms, and secondly, a discourse has focused on the rising importance of municipal government and local governance systems. The main problem at present remains the absence of more holistic thinking on the need for a new enterprise, federated architecture for collaboration that entails an overhaul of the existing political arrangements of the federation. An additional lesson to draw at present is that the weak status and limited capacities of Canada's municipalities, a concern predating e-government's emergence, risk amplification as a governance handicap for both individual communities and the country in adapting to a more digital age. However, the consequences of the weakness also depend on how provincial and federal governments respond to the erosion of public trust by adapting their own structures, as well as the effectiveness of emerging top-down mechanisms being deployed to strengthen the infrastructure of cities and communities.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · 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