Municipal shared service collaboration in the Alberta Capital Region: The case of recreation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article examines the determinants of participation of Edmonton‐area municipalities in shared services arrangements for recreational and cultural services. Potential determinants emerge from the literature on inter‐municipal collaborative arrangements, but this analysis extends the empirical work on the determinants of participation to encompass small municipalities and to consider the appeal of potential partners. The major finding is that, in the Edmonton environment (and likely in many others), municipal population size is the critical determinant of participation, and participation is inversely related to population size. Sommaire : Le présent article examine les facteurs déterminants de la participation des municipalités de la région d'Edmonton dans les ententes relatives aux services partagés en ce qui concerne les services récréatifs et culturels. Les déterminants potentiels proviennent de la littérature sur les ententes de collaboration entre les municipalités. Cependant, l'analyse prolonge le travail empirique sur les facteurs déterminants de la participation pour y inclure les petites municipalités et pour tenir compte de l'appel à des partenaires potentiels. Le principal résultat est que, dans la région d'Edmonton (et vraisemblablement dans de nombreuses autres régions), la taille de la population municipale est le déterminant critique de la participation, et la participation est inversement proportionnelle à la taille de la population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".