Introduction: territorial governance: a new take on development/ Introduction: la gouvernance territoriale: un nouveau regard sur le developpement
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
The question of territorial governance has been dealt with extensively over the last decade, both in America and in Europe (Chaskin 1997, 1998, 2001, 2005; Fontan et al 2006; Glaser et al 1996; Glaser 1997; Khakee 2005; Leblanc 2006; Magnusson 2005; Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005; Mcguire 2001; Norton 2005; Offner 2007; Proulx 2004; Reese 1993 a, 1993b, 1994; Reese and Rosenfeld 2001, 2004; Reese and Fasenfest 2003; Sanyal 2006; Selsky 1991, 2005; Shaffer and Marcouiller 2006; Thomas 2006; Visser 2002, 2004; Wrigley and Lewis 2002). (1) Despite this, and the obvious popularity of the topic, as an area of research it has not yet been covered in a special issue of the Canadian Journal of Regional Science. This special issue is innovative in that it presents--mainly in French--the results of research undertaken by Canadian researchers. The research profiles a number of different questions that have recently emerged as governance has been plied to territorial development processes. The synthesis we provide will allow the reader to appreciate whether this 'governance of proximity' is--or is not--a unique and original approach to thinking about and living in a territory. Without having the pretension of examining the issues thoroughly in a single special issue, given current circumstances we felt it more pertinent than ever to present an intersecting perspective, through a series of articles, on innovative practices in territorial governance, particularly in relation to issues of education, natural resources, aboriginal peoples, the approaches to local development and the multiple initiatives of civil society. Territorial development and the concepts generally associated with it (such as local development, regional development, community development, endogenous development, bottom-up development) comprise a similar range of multidisciplinary domains that cannot be dealt with from scratch. The same thing can be said for the extremely broad question of governance, a term with multiple ramifications and meanings. As Paiement puts it (2006: 9): governance 'can mean the definition of an efficient bureaucracy, measures to fight against corruption, citizen participation, and even the promotion of political and social rights' (translation). This is why it is important for us to situate governance in its historic context and to illustrate how it has come to be seen as an indispensable building--block for understanding local development. In short, our aim here is to better understand the scientific and ideological trajectory that has led us from governance to territorial governance. Territorial Governance: What Is It All About? Based on the historical synthesis produced by Patrick Le Gales (2004), the concept of governance was initially used in management sciences to designate complex forms of management in private organisations--commonly known as 'corporate governance' or 'business governance' as popularised by Williamson (1979)--and which was then picked up again at the beginning of the 1990s in order to study the renewal of different forms of collective action. In the latter case, social sciences called upon governance to better understand how collective action is organized in a context where public institutions are both in the process of losing their legitimacy (Juillet and Andrew 1999; Jouve 2004) and are no longer capable of responding on their own to contemporary social issues (Pal 2001; Paquet 2001; Andrew and Goldsmith 1998; Duchastel 2004). This concept of governance attracted more and more attention from researchers and practitioners in the development field (Osmont 1998), particularly from those involved in regional development (Lafontaine and Jean 2005). The loss of legitimacy, and even efficiency, of broad public policies in relation to regional redistribution (Jean 1989; Chiasson 1997) that coincided with the crisis of the Welfare State (Rosanvallon 1981, 1995), gave way in regional science to a new perspective with more emphasis on local territories as a driving force for the development of regions (Jambes 2000). …
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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