Governance Restructuring in Los Angeles and Toronto: Amalgamation or Secession?
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
Towards the end of the 1990s, a perplexing situation occurred in two large North American cities. In Toronto, Ontario, and Los Angeles, California, conservative political forces undertook to restructure the system of urban governance. While initiated by conservatives in both cases, in Toronto the result was consolidation; in Los Angeles secessionism is rampant. In both cases the political debate on amalgamation and secession is tied in with discourses on size, efficiency and form of urban government. In both cases, also, the shift from government to governance has been a central theme. This article investigates how local governance has changed in these two cities by comparing historical traditions of governance. Each city has a specific set of external relationships with other geographical and political scales and a set of characteristic internal contradictions. Internally, Los Angeles' tradition of splintered governance stands in contrast to Toronto's metropolitan governance model. Amalgamation and secession have been introduced as strategic options of governance restructuring in both cities in the late 1990s. Both (projected and realized) scalar changes of governance processes and institutions have been accompanied and characterized by social struggles and widespread political debate. The article outlines these debates and discusses the respective political alliances which have formed in both urban regions on the issue of amalgamation/secession. Vers la fin des années 1990, une situation troublante se produisit dans deux grandes villes d'Amérique du Nord: Toronto, en Ontario, et Los Angeles, en Californie. Les conservateurs y avaient entrepris de restructurer le système de gouvernance urbaine. Bien que l'initiative revienne aux mêmes forces politiques dans les deux cas, le résultat fut à Toronto une unification et à Los Angeles un sécessionnisme rampant. Dans les deux villes, le débat politique sur l'amalgamation et la sécession est lié aux discours sur la taille, l'efficacité et la forme d'un gouvernement urbain. De même, dans les deux villes, le passage de gouvernement à gouvernance s'est trouvé au centre des propos. Cet article recherche comment la gouvernance locale a évolué dans ces deux villes en comparant les traditions historiques. Chaque ville présente, d'une part, un ensemble particulier de relations extérieures avec d'autres échelles géographiques et politiques et, d'autre part, un ensemble de contradictions intérieures caractéristiques. Sur le plan intérieur, la tradition de gouvernance éclatée de Los Angeles s'oppose au modèle de gouvernance métropolitaine de Toronto. Vers la fin des années 1990, amalgamation et sécession ont été présentées dans les deux villes comme des options stratégiques pour la restructuration de la gouvernance. Les changements d'échelle –à la fois prévus et réalisés – concernant les processus et institutions de gouvernance ont été accompagnés et caractérisés par des conflits sociaux et un débat politique général. L'article expose ces discussions et aborde les alliances politiques respectives qui se sont formées dans les deux zones urbaines sur la question d'amalgamation/sécession.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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