Metagovernance of urban governance networks in Canada: In pursuit of legitimacy and accountability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article introduces the concept of “metagovernance” into the Canadian public administration literature. The term captures the relationship and tension between the willingness of the state to engage with civil society representatives in substantive policy planning and decision‐making via purpose‐focused governance networks, while maintaining some degree of control over their activity consistent with traditional notions of democratic accountability. Examples of fifteen cases of network governance at the local level from all regions in Canada and various policy domains are compared. The article identifies patterns in the management of governance networks by the state and reflects on the implications for network governance and accountability. Sommaire Cet article introduit le concept de la « métagouvernance » dans les documents de l'administration publique canadienne. Le terme reflète la relation et la tension entre la volonté de l'État de s'engager avec les représentants de la société civile dans une importante planification et prise de décisions en matière de politiques par le biais de réseaux de gouvernance axés sur des objectifs, tout en maintenant un certain degré de contrôle sur leur activité, conforme aux notions traditionnelles d'imputabilité en démocratie. On y compare les exemples de quinze cas de gouvernance de réseaux à l'échelle locale de toutes les régions du Canada et dans divers domaines de politique. L'article identifie les tendances dans la gestion des réseaux de gouvernance par l'État et examine les implications pour la gouvernance des réseaux et l'imputabilité.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".