MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468537008 · doi:10.2166/wp.2005.0029

Governance, business models and restructuring water supply utilities: recent developments in Ontario, Canada

2005· article· en· W2468537008 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen Bakker, David Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringCorporate governanceBusinessCorporatizationGovernment (linguistics)Public sectorWater supplyLegislaturePublic administrationEconomicsFinanceEconomyPolitical scienceMarket economyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many municipal governments are currently confronted with the need to restructure water supply systems. This paper examines how municipalities are restructuring water supply utility management in the province of Ontario (Canada), which has recently experienced significant and rapid legislative and regulatory reform in the water sector. The paper analyses restructuring in six different municipalities (Hamilton, Kingston, Peel, Peterborough, Toronto and York). It identifies six distinct business models adopted as an outcome of the restructuring process (delegated management to a private operator, corporatization of services provision, delegated management to a public operator, a municipal commission, a municipal ‘business unit’ and a municipal department) and examines the different approaches to governance adopted during the restructuring process. The case study is conceptualized through a discussion of the governance and restructuring challenges faced by municipalities. As municipalities are often confronted with a bewildering array of business models, governance frameworks and contract types when engaging in a review of restructuring options, the paper situates the analysis of the Ontario case within a general survey of business models for networked water supply. The paper concludes with a discussion of “lessons learnt” relevant to municipalities and higher orders of government when engaging in restructuring of networked water supply provision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater PolicySame topicPublic-Private Partnership ProjectsFrench-language works237,207