Metagovernance of urban governance networks in Canada: In pursuit of legitimacy and accountability
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
Abstract This article introduces the concept of “metagovernance” into the C anadian 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 C anada 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' É tat 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 C anada et dans divers domaines de politique. L'article identifie les tendances dans la gestion des réseaux de gouvernance par l' É tat 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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