MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cooperation and Capacity? Exploring the Sources and Limits of City‐Region Governance Partnerships

2012· article· en· W2135149504 on OpenAlexaff
Jen Nelles

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceProsperityContext (archaeology)PolycentricityRegional sciencePolitical scienceScholarshipRestructuringFlexibility (engineering)Local governmentEconomic geographyFunction (biology)Multi-level governanceEconomic systemPublic administrationEconomicsGeographyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Scholarship abounds on the importance of city‐regions to regional and national prosperity, and to the wider global economy. But little is known about their capacity to function as effective, legitimate and robust policy actors. This article begins to address the important question of what determines the governance capacity of city‐regions by unpacking the concepts at the core of this research. It focuses on sources of horizontal capacity as a function of the strength of intermunicipal partnerships. Research suggests a variety of determinants of the strength of inter municipal partnerships, from rational choice to institutional perspectives. This article acknowledges the contribution of these approaches, but argues that none of the approaches presented to date can alone explain observed variations in the strength and capacity of city‐regional partnerships. Instead the article presents an alternative theoretical framework that reimagines and combines existing approaches, and introduces the concept of civic capital as a critical determinant of governance capacity. Résumé De nombreux travaux de recherches soulignent combien les régions métropolitaines sont importantes pour la prospérité régionale et nationale, et pour l'économie mondiale en général. Pourtant, on en sait peu sur leur capacitéà opérer comme acteurs efficaces, légitimes et solides des politiques publiques. En revenant sur les concepts fondamentaux de ces études, l'article traite d'abord un point important: les facteurs déterminants de la capacité de gouvernance des régions métropolitaines. Il s'attache aux sources de capacité horizontale en fonction de la solidité des partenariats intercommunaux. Les études suggèrent tout un éventail de facteurs de cette solidité, allant du choix rationnel aux perspectives institutionnelles. Toutes les approches présentées à ce jour contribuent au débat général, mais aucune ne peut expliquer à elle seule les variations observées dans la solidité et la capacité des partenariats des régions métropolitaines. Un cadre théorique alternatif est présenté dans cet article, permettant de réimaginer et de combiner les approches existantes, tout en introduisant le concept de capital civique comme facteur essentiel de la capacité de gouvernance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.021
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.560
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.100 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207