MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066114926 · doi:10.1177/1078087403253055

A Charter for the People?

2003· article· en· W2066114926 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roger Keil, Douglas L. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Affairs Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterPoliticsAutonomyRestructuringPublic administrationScope (computer science)Political scienceState (computer science)SociologyCorporate governanceLawEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors discuss municipal autonomy in Toronto and contextualize this debate by analyzing the recent history of governance restructuring in Toronto and Canada's changing state architecture. Specifically,proposals for and conversations about a possible Toronto charter are discussed. On the basis of document research and interviews,the authors present the arguments and politics of the main actors in the charter debate,noting that there is both agreement and disagreement among those interested in the issue about the exact functions,reach,and scope of the charter. The conclusion ties the debate back into the current policy debate on Canada's 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban Affairs ReviewSame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207