MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763867983 · doi:10.1177/1078087416684380

The Local Autonomy of Canada’s Largest Cities

2016· article· en· W2763867983 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alison K. Smith, Zachary Spicer

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Affairs Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAutonomyLegislatureLocal governmentDecentralizationPoliticsPublic administrationPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Political economySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s cities operate within restrictive legislative frameworks, yet incremental changes have resulted in some large Canadian cities accepting more policy responsibility. In this article, we ask if some big cities have a greater degree of local autonomy than others? We use existing Canadian and international literature to build a made-for-Canada index to quantitatively measure and compare levels of local autonomy by measuring vertical relations between 10 large cities and their respective provinces across three dimensions: legal-administrative autonomy, fiscal autonomy, and political autonomy. Overall, we find low levels of local autonomy, but differences along various dimensions of autonomy, notably political. Few countries in the world have senior levels of government that have been so resistant to loosen restraint and regulation as has been in the case in Canada; our results from this unique and important case shed new light on the reactions of subnational government to evolving demands for increased decentralization and local autonomy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban Affairs ReviewSame topicPolitical Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207