Urban governance and public leisure policies: a comparative analysis framework
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
In the last few decades, the literature on leisure policies has evolved, thanks to a better understanding of the effects and impacts of public leisure actions rather than a comprehensive study of that field's public policy process. This has resulted in the development of a corpus focused on knowledge for policies rather than knowledge of policies, particularly in the study of urban governance and of the co-production of services with the non-profit and private sectors. The purpose of this article is to further explore the theoretical and conceptual implications of urban governance applied to the analysis of public leisure policies. It also aims to draw inspiration from the main approaches of urban policy analysis in order to propose an analytical framework applicable to an empirical process for comparative analysis mainly focused on describing the dynamics of local governance. The main purpose of this framework is to analyse the actors, governance mechanisms and factors that characterise the development of local leisure policies while giving special consideration to the collaborative nature of the relationships within this coalition of partners.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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