MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202661383 · doi:10.29173/mlj890

Building from the Ground up: Funding the Infrastructure Deficit in Manitoba

2014· article· en· W3202661383 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joan Grace

Bibliographic record

VenueManitoba Law Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ocal communities are critical to regional and national economies.Many municipalities, however, are unable to live up to their social and economic potential (Courchene 2007).This is visibly evident in municipal infrastructure.In the built environment, municipalities are remarkably under-resourced; a situation familiar to taxpaying citizens frustrated with having to drive around potholes or navigate chipped concrete on sidewalks.Roads, mass transit, parklands, and water systems significantly contribute to public health and citizens' standards of living, yet 60% of infrastructure works in Canada were built over 70 years ago.This situation is even more troublesome when we consider that the life span of many of these public works is only 40 to 50 years (IFC 2011:38).Added to these concerns are provincialmunicipal financial arrangements often characterized as being equally in a "state of disrepair" (Kitchen 2006).Across the country, the infrastructure deficitthe disparity between demand for services versus the financial ability of municipalities to build and maintain public infrastructurehas become an uncontroversial source of worry for many municipalities (Vander Ploeg and Holden 2013;Mirza 2007;

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManitoba Law JournalSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207