Municipal Reform in New Brunswick: Minor Tinkering in Light of Major Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the past 15 years, the legal framework within which New Brunswick’s municipalities operate has been unsettled. In the Frank McKenna era, there was considerable uncertainty because the provincial government undertook the forced amalgamation of a number of communities and engineered the replacement of the City of Moncton Police Force with the RCMP. Further, in 1996, the McKenna government implemented a new unconditional grant system, which redistributed a smaller sum of money to municipalities and Local Service Districts (LSDs) based on a new, controversial formula; however, this new unconditional grant system was never fully phased in. The Bernard Lord government, elected in 1999, responded to municipal discontent by freezing the phase-in. In addition, for the past eight years, interested parties have been discussing new legislation to replace the existing Municipalities Act, which dates back to 1967 and arises from the Equal Opportunity era. During the past seven years, New Brunswick has been going through a constant series of meetings on municipal reform, yet this has resulted only in minor tinkering. This article will survey the problems in the New Brunswick municipal sector, principally in the areas of the provincial-municipal funding relationship, the antiquated Municipalities Act, and the lack of democratic, rural self-government. The central argument is that New Brunswick has been averse to making changes to address the greatest problems and that, for a variety of reasons, major changes look unlikely in the near- to medium-term.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".