Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the challenges of governing metropolitan regions in different parts of the world and the range of restructuring options that are considered to address them, including two-tier models, voluntary cooperation, special purpose districts and amalgamations. The authors conclude that, based on the international evidence, two-tier structures may be more effective in allowing metropolitan regions to reap the benefits that come with large size, while retaining the responsiveness typical of smaller municipalities. It also includes a case study of the amalgamation in Toronto that provides new empirical research about its effects on expenditures on municipal services and tax revenues, and the implications for governance and citizen participation. While Toronto’s amalgamation has resulted in higher expenditures and has not solved any of the regional issues, it may have had some benefits: a fairer sharing of the tax base among rich and poor municipalities and the ability to equalize local service levels across the larger city.
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 | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.003 |
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".