MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploring the Metropolitan Trap: The Case of Montreal

2011· article· en· W2143551848 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mariona Tomàs

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaCONTESTPolitical scienceNormativeCorporate governanceHumanitiesPublicsSociologyPublic administrationWelfare economicsPoliticsGeographyManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article analyses the normative dimension of metropolitan governance in the case of Montreal. According to the main schools of thought (the reform school, the public choice school, new regionalism and the rescaling approach), there is an ideal scale at which to achieve specific goals such as equality, efficiency, democracy and economic competitiveness. These ideologically oriented conceptions of metropolitan governance are assumed by actors and used as symbolic resources to build their own strategies, i.e. to support or contest institutional reforms — what we call the metropolitan trap. The case of Montreal, which underwent two successive institutional reforms between 2000 and 2006, provides empirical evidence for this idea. Our analysis reveals that the Government of Quebec and local elected councils of Greater Montreal are trapped by these normative conceptions, especially the old regionalisms. However, scalar strategies do not compete equally, as the institutional context legitimates specific approaches to metropolitan governance. Résumé Cet article analyse la dimension normative de la gouvernance métropolitaine dans le cas de Montréal. Les principales écoles théoriques (de la réforme, des choix publics, du nouveau régionalisme et du redimensionnement) estiment qu'il existe un échelon idéal pour la réussite d'objectifs particuliers, tels que l'égalité, l'efficacité, la démocratie et la compétitivitééconomique. Orientées idéologiquement, ces conceptions de la gouvernance métropolitaine servent de ressources symboliques aux acteurs qui les adoptent afin de bâtir leurs propres stratégies, pour ou contre les réformes institutionnelles, d'où ce qui est appelé ici le ‘piège métropolitain’. À cet égard, Montréal, qui a connu deux réformes institutionnelles successives entre 2000 et 2006, apporte des éléments empiriques. L'analyse révèle que le gouvernement du Québec et les conseils d'élus locaux qui administrent le Grand Montréal sont piégés par ces conceptions normatives, notamment par les anciens régionalismes. Par ailleurs, les stratégies d'échelle ne rivalisent pas sur un pied d'égalité puisque le contexte institutionnel ne légitime que certaines approches de gouvernance métropolitaine.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.374
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.050 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations44
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchSame topicPolitical Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207