Local Government in Northern British Columbia: Competing or Cooperating?
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
It is more or less traditional for residents of northern British Columbia to bemoan their lack of infl uence over provincial policies and to encourage the devolution of power to northern agencies, generally with little eff ect. Over the years, local government offi cials have recognized that unity may bring strength, and have attempted to bring together coalitions to present a united front on a variety of issues. Results have been mixed, and the coalitions have been transitory. However, there are indications that change is “in the air.” This paper describes selected inter-municipal cooperative activities from the late 1960s. While a “culture of opposition” characterized the early days of many of the attempts to promote inter-municipal cooperation, there are some subtle indications that attitudes are changing. Nevertheless, commu nication and dialogue seem to be an ongoing problem. Some of the ways in which local governments have cooperated or competed are reviewed, and comments are made on some of the successes and failures along the way. The paper concentrates on issues that involve more than one regional district, and does not deal with the provision of local services by regional districts within their own boundaries. It is written largely from the perspective of personal knowledge and on the basis of conversations with those who have been, or are, involved in cooperative eff orts. 1 It should be regarded as “research just begun” and not as the result of exhaustive or extensive fi eldwork and ana lysis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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