Regime or coalition? Power relations and the urban agenda in Saint John, 1950‐2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the forces and actors that shaped urban development in a mid‐sized Canadian city over a half century. Design/methodology/approach This case study adopts a qualitative research approach based on government documents, planning studies, the media and non‐governmental organization sources to examine the applicability of regime theory versus growth coalition theory in the Canadian context. Findings The paper concludes that the broader urban agenda in Saint John, with its focus on economic competitiveness, has been shaped by shifting growth coalitions supported by both the private and public sectors. Research limitations/implications One limitation is that analysis is based mainly on documentary evidence and the public statements of elected officials and business interests. Future research would attempt to conduct oral interviews with representative informants. Practical implications One practical implication for urban researchers is the need to look beyond electoral politics and partisanship in order to understand how urban development is shaped in the medium and long term. The research findings suggest also the need for informed citizens to adopt a more critical stance to business and political leaders, and to the local media, in their own communities. Originality/value This paper is one of the few to address the politics of urban development in Saint John, New Brunswick's largest city. It also contributes to the literature on regionalism and mid‐sized cities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".