Improving the management of intergovernmental relations: a project for the City of St. Albert government relations committee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional and intergovernmental structures and dynamics are changing at a local government level in Alberta because of legislated collaboration frameworks and growth management boards, starting in 2008 and enhanced in 2017. For the City of St. Albert, who is impacted by this, it is becoming increasingly challenging to approach intergovernmental matters in a coordinated manner, and to maintain existing service- levels related to intergovernmental administrative services. One option to improve the situation, could be the development of a Government Relations Council Committee, as has been done elsewhere in Western Canada. The purpose of this report is to look at if a Government Relations Committee is a viable option for the City of St. Albert, by looking at the literature around municipal intergovernmental structures and practices in Western Canada, and by surveying the same municipalities. The research question is: if the City of St. Albert were to pursue the development of a Government Relations Committee, what would be the framework for its development?
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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".