Experiências de Governança Metropolitana Internacional: Os Casos dos Estados Unidos e do Canadá
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
This paper focus on aspects of metropolitan governance of the United States and Canada highlighting strategies of cooperation and criteria used in their experiences of management and institutionalization. Thus, it describes both the governance experiences implemented voluntarily or compulsorily, their financing mechanisms and the resulting ability to offer public services. Besides, aiming at further deepening the understanding of the strategies adopted, this paper depicts the processes of conurbation, urban sprawl and densification in metropolitan areas. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to analyze the institutional processes of metropolitan governance and its fostering of public policies and programs. Institutional guidelines, challenges and observed limitations are considered for the cases at hand. In order to develop the paper, specific literature produced by the institutions as well as their analysis was consulted. The analyses indicate that there are different governance structures in Canada and in the United States concerning both political attachment and concentration or fragmentation of decision-making processes although delimitation criteria of metropolitan areas are similar. There is a diversity of models for offering public services. However, some limitations can still be observed in terms of articulating policies among different sectors. Disagreements persist among public and private economic actors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
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