Towards new regionalism? Case study of changing regional governance in the Yangtze River Delta
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper draws on a series of interviews with urban planners and government officials to examine the changing regional governance in the Yangtze River Delta. It finds that integration and collaboration are emerging and the growing economic benefits of intercity cooperation serves as a driver for local government to change from hostile competition to collaboration. Nevertheless, regional governance is far from established. Instead, regional transformations reflect the local politics of economic devolution and urban entrepreneurialism. Currently, there is no formal regional institution or coalition and the regional agenda is economic oriented and project based. Policies are formulated by individual cities rather than through multilateral negotiation between cities. The primary motive underlying the initiatives for cooperation is regional economic competitiveness rather than regional integration. Hence, the paper argues that emerging collaboration is far from being a substantial departure from inter‐jurisdiction competition in the earlier phase of regional governance.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it