MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971522589 · doi:10.5637/jpasurban.2018.130

Urban Regime Analysis and Civic Participation and Cooperation:

2018· article· en· W2971522589 on OpenAlexaff
Tomoyo ENDO

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Japan Association for Urban Sociology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdministration (probate law)AllianceGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationPolitical scienceLocal governmentPolitical economySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Movements to encourage civic participation and cooperation are being adopted by local governments across Japan . This paper explores the forces that execute these policies and the responses from local governments to these forces. This paper applies urban regime analysis to evaluate three policies for civic participation and cooperation in Chiba City. Since 1950, the city was governed by a “development oriented” regime, but an administration change in 2009 altered the orientation of government policy. During the time of the development-oriented regime, four different mayors were supported by the conservative party, businesses, and labor unions, which offered a stable alliance for many years. However, in 2009, the new mayor, Kumagai Toshihito, who was supported by many unorganized citizens as well as left-center parties, tried to increase general citizens' participation in Chiba's urban regime. This led to Kumagai adding many unorganized citizens to his regime. The analysis of these three policies showed that efforts toward civic participation and cooperation are progressing in the Kumagai administration, which is consistent with national trends toward increasing government participation. Using urban regime analysis, this paper suggests that progress by civic participation and cooperation policies is associated with an expanded number of actors involved in a local governmental regime and that some regimes are better able to attract citizen participants than others.

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)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Japan Association for Urban SociologySame topicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207