MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7000375217

Evolution of regional governance in British Columbia with special focus on the Metro Vancouver area

2010· other· en· W7000375217 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2010
Typeother
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCorporate governanceGovernment (linguistics)LegislationLocal governmentWork (physics)DelegateResource (disambiguation)Municipal servicesPoolingRural area
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 level of government.Regional districts are by design, collaborative structures where the scope of their mandates are largely determined by the membership it serves and a regional district's fundamental process is to facilitate participative decision-making for the betterment of the broader community.A key question for Metro Vancouver is, whether its issues are too big to handle within the regional district framework or could the same model be evolved to accommodate its needs?While the identification and evaluation of alternative regional governance structures will be the topic of subsequent studies, this paper should provide a solid foundation of B.C.'s regional governance history for future work.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,627
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,222
Écart entre enseignants0,207 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Travaux en français237 207