MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553272800 · doi:10.1111/capa.12027

Explaining the use of planning consultants in<scp>O</scp>ntario cities

2013· article· en· W1553272800 on OpenAlexafffund
Bessma Momani, Luna Khirfan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance InnovationUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhenomenonBusinessPublic relationsFunctionalism (philosophy of mind)Urban planningMarketingPolitical sciencePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Consulting firms providing policy advice to governments is a widespread phenomenon. This article asks why municipalities employ urban planning consultant firms to advise on public sector projects. Municipal employees from 19 mid‐sized O ntario cities responded to online survey questionnaires asking for their opinions on why urban planning consultant firms are hired by their cities. In testing four hypotheses, this study found functionalism (the need for expertise because of a lack of in‐house talent or time) to be the strongest explanation for this phenomenon. In addition to a lack of staff time and resources, the ideational hypothesis — perceived specialized knowledge and expertise of consultants — was also found to be relevant.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207