New Challenges and Old Solutions: Metropolitan Reorganization in Canadian and U.S. City–Regions
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
This article examines how local public institutions, especially municipal administrations, have adapted their structures and actual practices to respond to new regionalist and metropolitan challenges. We want to assess if, and how much, governmental institutions are really adopting new ways to plan, supervise, and implement metropolitan policies. More precisely, we analyze 35 American and Canadian urban agglomerations that rank as regional capitals or mid– sized urban areas. The emphasis is on the transformation of metropolitan institutions and on metropolitan area taxation strategies. The analysis pinpoints a number of findings regarding the nature and impact of recent institutional reforms. These findings involve: 1) the return in force of the unicity in Canada, 2) the slow development in the organization of the local public sector and the adoption of institutional solutions favoring voluntary associations in the US, 3) the discrepancy between discourse and practice in terms of the objectives targeted by fiscal measures, and 4) the growing role of state and provincial governments in metropolitan institutional and fiscal reforms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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