Differences in Regime and Structure within an Ecological Region: Comparing Environmental Governance in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a preliminary report from one part of a collaborative effort among social and natural scientists from four universities designed to investigate the relationship between human and ecological systems in the context of local governance. The paper begins with an overview of the Portland-Vancouver ULTRA project and the role of political science within the project’s theoretical orientation. The substantive portion of the paper considers the utility of Urban Regime Theory for understanding local environmental governance. The unusual characteristics of the Portland Metropolitan region, a single economic and ecological region with a bifurcated state and local governance structure, provide an opportunity to compare very different urban regimes in a single region. The analysis, based on stakeholder interviews and secondary source review, gives particular attention to the role of different state government policy contexts in shaping and supporting different urban regimes. We find that Portland exhibits a stable, progressive “smart-growth” regime while Vancouver (and Clark County) is in a period of fragmentation without a stable urban regime. More significantly, we find that both of these realities are best explained through reference to the differing state level regulatory contexts in which they exist. We conclude with some preliminary observations from on-going stakeholder interviews that we hope to use to develop hypotheses for the next stages of the project.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".