Evolution of regional governance in British Columbia with special focus on the Metro Vancouver area
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
While the regional district concept of governance in British Columbia was formally introduced by legislation in 1965, it had the benefit of precursors such as the improvement district and community planning area frameworks initiated in 1920's and 1940's, respectively.A deeper examination of references provides evidence of inter-municipal agreements dating back to the early 1900's where adjacent communities pooled resources to secure basic municipal utilities.Interestingly, those basic utilities such as water supply, wastewater collection, transit services provided today by the government sector, were started by private enterprises that have long been forgotten.The motivation for inter-municipal collaboration started with the geographic location of communities in relation to the source of the resource such as water.A single utility system servicing a multiple number of communities permitted pooling of funds to establish, operate, and deliver quality services that could not be afforded or made possible by a single municipality alone.All participating communities in the utility service would benefit from efficiencies yielded by the economy of scale.While the "urban" areas formed alliances to build public utilities, the rural areas were largely unincorporated and in the absence of a local government, the province acted as the municipal government.The burden of providing local government services by the province motivated their work to find alternate government structures to which it could delegate its local responsibility.Improvement districts and community planning areas were precursors to the regional district model and had mixed successes.The desire by the province was to formulate a model that would provide communities in a broader region, general government authority.Recognizing that a "bottom-up" rather than a "top-down" approach to introducing an alternate forms of governance, the Honourable Minister Dan Campbell and Deputy Minister Everett Brown led a consultative process and developed regional district legislation in 1965.A key principle inherent in the legislation is for the provincial government to delegate significant authority to regional districts that brings decision-making closer to the issues.The regional district framework is just that -a framework on which communities can build the type of regional district they want by choosing the functions to include.However, as much as regional districts have enjoyed successful implementation, there have been issues relating to the balance of power between the provincial government and regional government, particularly on the transportation issue in the Metro Vancouver area.Linked with this will be ensuring strong accountability in the face of decision-making boards comprised of non-elected officials.For Metro Vancouver, future issues will become more complex, will be broader in scope, will involve a greater number of stakeholders.The regional district framework recognizes that singular municipalities can not address the service needs of the broader community.Regional district governments formed within the local government structure have bridged the gap between municipalities and the broader community, without creating another Union of BC Municipalities; BC Ministry of Community Services.(2005).Introduction to Regional Districts: Communities in Partnership.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».