Accountability and Responsiveness at the Municipal Level: Views from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Are municipal governments democratic simply because they are elected? In Canada, the quality of municipal democracy has been questioned due to three crucial factors. First, voter turnout tends to be significantly lower for municipal elections than it is for other levels of government. Second, the re-election rate of incumbent candidates is higher compared to provincial, territorial, and federal elections. Third, corruption and other scandals have tarnished the image of local democracy. Are cities sufficiently capable of responding to crises and representing the interests of their residents? \n \nAccountability and Responsiveness at the Municipal Level addresses these issues through qualitative and quantitative analysis, focusing on some of the most important characteristics of the Canadian municipal scene, including the contexts of partisanship and non-partisanship, the careers and daily work of municipal officials, and multilevel governance. This volume also assists directly in the collection and dissemination of data about cities as there is currently no centralized system for capturing and organizing electoral statistics at the municipal level. \n \nMunicipal democracy in Canada suffers from a representation deficit. Accountability and Responsiveness at the Municipal Level is an important first step in building high-quality comparative information on the politics of Canada’s cities.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".