La réforme municipale au Nouveau-Brunswick : ses impacts sur le développement territorial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La réforme municipale, déposée en novembre 2021 par le gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick, étaitattendue depuis longtemps. Le dernier exercice de restructuration territoriale tenu au sein de cette province canadienne remonte au milieu des années 1960. Plus qu’une simple réorganisation municipale, la réforme proposée suggère des changements majeurs en matière de gouvernance, de développement économique et communautaire, mais aussi d’aménagement du territoire. Ces changements seront essentiellement sous la houlette des commissions de services régionaux (CSR). Quels seront les impacts de cette réforme en matière de développement territorial? Telle est la question à laquelle cet article tente de répondre. Compte tenu des fortes disparités locales et régionales qui se manifestent toujours avec beaucoup d’acuité au Nouveau-Brunswick, il demeure impératif que cette réforme, pour qu’elle puisse entraîner des effets bénéfiques sur le développement, soit couplée à une stratégie misant à la fois sur la correction des problèmes structurels et sur le renforcement des capacités des acteurs sociaux. The municipal reform tabled in November 2021 by the Government of New Brunswick was long overdue. The last territorial restructuring exercise held in this Canadian province took place back to the mid-1960s. More than a simple municipal reorganization, the reform proposes major changes in governance, economic and community development as well as land-use planning. These changes will be essentially held under the leadership of the regional service commissions (RSC). What will be the impacts of this reform in terms of territorial development? This is the question this article attempts to answer. Given the strong local and regional disparities that are still very evident in New Brunswick, it remains imperative that this reform, so that it can have beneficial effects on development, be coupled with a strategy focusing on the correction of structural problems and on the capacity building of social actors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".