Experiências de Governança Metropolitana Internacional: Os Casos dos Estados Unidos e do Canadá
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O texto analisa aspectos da governança metropolitana dos Estados Unidos e do Canadá, observando estratégias de ações cooperadas e critérios utilizados em suas experiências de gestão e institucionalização. Nesse sentido, discorre-se sobre os arranjos instituídos de forma compulsória ou voluntária, as fontes de financiamento e a oferta de serviços cooperados. Além disso, no intuito de contribuir para a compreensão da problemática e das estratégias de enfrentamento da questão, o estudo enfoca os processos de metropolização, suburbanização e adensamento de áreas metropolitanas. Desse modo, este estudo tem por objetivo analisar a questão metropolitana, considerando essencialmente suas institucionalidades e a promoção de políticas e programas empreendidos nos espaços metropolitanos. Consideram-se as diretrizes institucionais dos países federativos em questão, bem como os desafios e limitações de fomento à governança metropolitana. As reflexões foram desenvolvidas a partir da revisão da literatura internacional e de estudos formais realizados pelas próprias instituições e organizações metropolitanas entre 1970 e 2012.A análise indica que os arranjos de governança metropolitana nos Estados Unidos e no Canadá apresentam estruturas diferenciadas em relação à participação política e à concentração ou fragmentação da tomada de decisão, embora os critérios de delimitação metropolitana sejam similares. Há diversidade de modelos para a prestação de serviços comuns e cooperação, com existência de fragilidades nas estratégias para a articulação de políticas intersetoriais e fortes conflitos entre agentes econômicos públicos e privados. 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".