MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W18490887 · doi:10.1177/152397211301300204

Does Municipal Amalgamation Strengthen the Financial Viability of Local Government? A Canadian Example

2013· article· en· W18490887 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Finance and Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUnited Nations Development ProgrammeUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsBusinessMunicipal servicesLocal governmentFinanceService delivery frameworkEconomies of scaleGovernment (linguistics)Service (business)SustainabilityScale (ratio)Financial servicesMarketingPublic administrationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rationale for the amalgamation of Toronto, Canada in 1998 was to save costs but, as this paper shows, it did not achieve its objective. An analysis of per household expenditures in constant dollars for four services (fire, garbage, libraries, and parks and recreation) from 1988 to 2008 shows that expenditures increased after amalgamation for all services but libraries. At the same time, the amalgamation seems to have resulted in reduced access and participation by residents in local decision-making. On a positive note, the amalgamation increased the financial ability of the smaller and poorer municipalities in the newly created city by increasing their access to the tax base of the amalgamated city as a whole. It also equalized local services so that all city residents receive a similar level of services.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.156 · 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