MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993377720 · doi:10.18192/clg-cgl.v6i1.4550

Positioning Culture within Canadian Municipalities

2019· article· en· W2993377720 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture and Local Governance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité LavalUniversity of OttawaInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedOrganizational cultureThe artsPosition (finance)CreaturesPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyBusinessEnvironmental planningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 
 
 Although sometimes still referred to as ‘creatures of the province’, municipalities in Canada now shape their own policies in a number of complex areas. This includes culture, since municipal cultural planning has broadened the municipal role. While municipalities still provide ‘cultural services’, such as arts centres and museums, cultural planning involves a more strategic role for the municipality in supporting the development of the local cultural sector, while integrating culture across many areas of municipal decision-making. The literature on organizational theory and design suggests that for municipal cultural planning to achieve these objectives, municipalities should adopt an organizational structure that supports this role. The Culture Position Study was initiated to better understand the different ways in which culture is currently situated within municipal organizational structures, and how these structures are evolving.
 
 

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.230 · 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