Regional district renewal : reforming regional government in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Governance and planning are inextricably linked. To have good planning there must be an appropriate governance structure in place. Regional districts have been praised by many, but their ability to carry out good planning is hampered by the nature of their structure and powers. The ongoing Municipal Act Reform Initiative provides an excellent opportunity to review regional districts and consider improvements to their structures and powers. The 35-year history of regional districts explains the current arrangement of their structures and powers. A re-evaluation of the needs of B.C. in 1965 confirms that those needs continue to be valid and regional districts should continue to address them. However, many new needs and concerns, such as sustainability, global economic restructuring, and the rural-urban interface, require attention. The regional districts of today are ill-equipped to handle new and emerging needs - especially those of a regional nature. Regional districts need a renewed regional focus. This can be accomplished with a moderately restructured board including a regionally-elected chair. Further, municipalities and the province alike must recognize the need for certain issues to be regionally. To adequately address regional needs, the specific regional responsibilities must be identified, and powers must be granted that are broad enough to tackle the regional responsibilities. Because the granting of broad powers may be overwhelming to many less-sophisticated municipalities and regional districts, the province should provide an option for local governments to stick with the current system of express powers or to use the grant of broad powers.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".