Toronto Ten Years after amalgamation/Toronto Dix Annees Apres la Fusion Municipale
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract This paper reviews what has happened to the City of Toronto 10 years after it was amalgamated. From 1995 to 2003, the Ontario Government made a number of major changes in the way that its municipalities were governed and financed. Some municipalities were forced to amalgamate despite the opposition of their residents. The government also redistributed certain responsibilities of the province to the municipalities through the Local Services Realignment Programme (LSRP). The process is called disentanglement. Since the LSRP led to the cost of many of the shared-cost programmes being shifted to the city, the programme can also be termed downloading. Other major changes include the use of market value for property tax assessment and the provincial government control of education funding for the local school boards. Resume Dans cet article, on examine ce que s'est passe a la Ville de Toronto dix annees apres la fusion municipale. Entre 1995 et 2003, le Gouvernement de l'Ontario a introduit plusieurs changements majeurs dans la facon dans laquelle ses municipalites furent gouvernees et financees. Certaines municipalites furent contraintes a subir une fusion, meme si leurs residents etaient contre. Le gouvernement a egalement redistribue certaines responsabilites de la province vers les municipalites. Ce processus visait une separation plus claire entre la province et les municipalites. Mais le resultat de cette transformation etait que les municipalites ont du assumer les couts de plusieurs programmes qu'autrefois etaient partages--une decentralisation des responsabilites sans un transfert des finances. D'autres changements majeurs incluent l'utilisation de la valeur du marche pour l'evaluation de la taxe sur le foncier and le controle par le gouvernement provincial du financement pour les commissions scolaires locaux. ********** This paper reviews what has happened to the City of Toronto 10 years after it was amalgamated. From 1995 to 2003, the Ontario Government made a number of major changes in the way that its municipalities were governed and financed. Some municipalities were forced to amalgamate despite the opposition of their residents. The government also redistributed certain responsibilities of the province to the municipalities through the Local Services Realignment Programme (LSRP). The process is calleddisentanglement. Since the LSRP lead to the cost of many of the shared-cost programmes being shifted to the city, the programme can also be called downloading. Other major changes include the use of market value for property tax assessment and the provincial government control of education funding for the local school boards. The Organization of Local Government Municipalities, their residents, provincial governments and academics have been concerned with the costs and benefits of a large unified city or megacitycompared with many small and diverse municipalities within a large metropolitan area. The concept of amalgamation involves the voluntary or forced merger of smaller local governments with a larger municipality to forma large metropolitan area. If the municipalities had the power to make their own decisions, theoretically they would select the size of government that would produce municipal goods and services at the lowest possible cost. They could also take advantage of economies of scale through joint buying with other municipalities. Many municipalities within a large urban area may also stimulate competition among the municipalities and this provides a strong incentive to keep costs down. Since different municipalities produce different packages of services and taxes, Tiebout argued that the residents could improve their economic welfare by selecting the municipalities where the services and taxes best fit their preferences (Tiebout 1956: 416-424). Determining the needs and desires of residents in small municipalities is less costly than in large municipalities because there are fewer residents for each elected official. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».