Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the institution of city-county separation in Ontario. City-county separation was the original form of municipal organization in the province, introduced as a method of distinguishing between urban and rural areas by politically separating one from the other. Over time, this practice lost ground to institutions such as regional government, which sought to connect urban and rural areas. Despite this institutional shift, 18 cities and towns in Ontario remain separated from their counties, establishing a situation where some of the province’s most populous communities lack institutional linkages to their surrounding rural municipalities.\nExploring four different thematic areas – planning, border expansion, social service delivery and agreement formation – this thesis finds that separated cities and counties are not forming cooperative agreements at expected rates. This is largely attributed to the nature of rural and urban life: there are few common servicing demands and, as such, cooperation is not a natural phenomenon. Additionally, this thesis finds that the institution of city-county separation itself is threatened by the expansion of rural areas around separated city. In a number of cases, the development goals of both areas are clashing. To address urban growth beyond separated cities, it is found that the province has adopted a consolidationist attitude towards separated cities, allowing the continuous outward expansion of separated cities, thereby continuing the practice of city-county separation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".