New Community Spaces: Regional Governance in the Public Interest in the Greater Toronto Area
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editor’s Note: A two-part podcast featuring a discussion by the authors of the Mini-symposium on Urban Governance can be found at http://journals.sagepub.com/page/uar/podcasts This article examines community-driven forms of institutionalized collaboration at the regional scale. We advance a generic and scalable framework that captures not only participants and incentives but also the structures and processes that shape urban policy objectives. This framework allows us to track implementation and adaptation, and to assess institutional viability, legitimacy, and performance over time. We find that the Greater Toronto CivicAction Alliance represents a durable and high-performing place-based alliance of social, economic, and political actors dedicated to regional development strategies that include growth and equity goals. Yet the CivicAction Alliance is not a governing coalition. Elite dominance of the policy agenda, value-based tensions, and weak linkages between elected and civic leaders indicate that governance challenges with important democratic implications remain.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it