Myths and Legends: Exploring Differences in Regional Governance and Collective Action in the North American City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their 1986 book Goldberg and Mercer find institutional and structural differences between Canadian and American cities attributable to the different ways that political culture has affected the evolution of urban regions. The American preference for individualism and competition, for limited government intervention and for local autonomy have all contributed to a political climate that encourages local government fragmentation and renders formal metropolitan restructuring difficult. This phenomenon is institutionalized in the principle of home rule. These features of the American system are widely cited to explain the relative rarity of metropolitan forms of government. But what of metropolitan governance? New regionalism emerged in response to the challenges of formal government reorganization and is based on the principle that metropolitan coalitions are easier to establish and more flexible than metropolitan reform. This form of regional coordination is more compatible with local autonomy. However, in theory metropolitan collective action may also be more difficult to establish in the American context that privileges individualism and competition. This article is structured around a series of questions: First, is metropolitan governance more difficult to establish in the American context? Second, are certain forms of metropolitan governance more common in each country, reflective of their political cultural and institutional differences? Finally, what do these findings suggest for theory building? Is one theory about the sources and determinants of metropolitan collective action sufficient? This article hypothesizes that despite important differences it is possible to explain the emergence and form of metropolitan governance with a single theoretical framework.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".