Different tiers of government in port governance: some general remarks on the institutional geography of ports in Europe and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the last thirty years, port governance has been marked by a new level of complexity which has resulted in the reshaping of the system of actors involved in the organization of ports. Devolution, which is taking place on most of the world's port ranges has thus altered the public-private division, i.e. the respective roles played by the different tiers of overnment and private operators in operation and regulation functions. There is an abundant literature on this topic, particularly in economics and management and the work of international organizations. This research has cast much light on the new modes of governance and is now attempting to explain how they are linked to port performance Models of port governance frequently consider the "public sector" to be a homogeneous entity and rather less research has examined its variety, i.e. the different categories of public sector actors that run the institutional levels that control the ports. The aim of this paper is thus to provide some insights into this question of the institutional geography of ports by identifying the various tiers of government, the functions they perform and how they are linked with each other in a number of ports. It draws on the main findings of research carried out for the French General Directorate for the Sea and Transport that aimed to shed light on public decision-making and the institutional models applied in port governance in 7 European countries and Canada. It therefore examines port statuses and legislation, supervision, monitoring, management and public finance in order to understand the diversity of the public sector presence in port models that are founded on different institutional geographies.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".