MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1868915663

Federalism and the institutional dynamics of intergovernmental spatial policy coordination in Canada

2011· dissertation· en· W1868915663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian Norman Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederalismPublic administrationPolitical scienceNew institutionalismPublic policyGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Spatial planningRegional sciencePoliticsSociologyGeographyEnvironmental planningLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis discusses the governmental institutional dynamics that structure the formulation and coordination of spatial policy within the federal Canadian intergovernmental system and presents methods to improve it. The research utilises the three traditions of new institutionalism - historical, rational choice and sociological - to develop a crosscutting assessment of intergovernmental spatial policy coordination. An embedded case study approach is then used to discuss intergovernmental spatial policy coordination between the governments of Canada, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.Research findings highlight the uniqueness of the institutional environments that exist within each government, and to a lesser extent each department, which structure policymakers’ understandings of intergovernmental spatial policy coordination. Policymakers demonstrate a distinct awareness of spatial issues, but they are often constrained in their ability formally to articulate this in the development of public policy, particularly in relation to intergovernmental interactions. The decentralised federal nature of Canada is shown to be a highly influential reason for this, with issues of history, equity, politics and strong regional government cultures playing important roles in impeding intergovernmental spatial policy coordination.The thesis explores these constraints, discussing how both formal and informal institutional structures interact to discourage the use of spatial policy, and discusses the ways in which intergovernmental spatial policy coordination could be enhanced in the specific context of Canada. The institutional framework developed in this research is shown to be a useful method for conceptualising the competing federal principles of unity and diversity in the study of intergovernmental spatial policy coordination. Ultimately this thesis argues that while intergovernmental spatial policy coordination is poorly developed in Canada, policymaker awareness of spatial issues influences the decision-making processes employed to develop and coordinate public policy.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University)Same topicPolitical Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207