MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388143862 · doi:10.24124/c677/20221841

From Tinkering to Transformation: Gradual Institutional Change in New Brunswick’s Local Governance System

2023· article· en· W4388143862 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jon Isaac Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Political Science Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVetoInstitutional changeHumanitiesPolitical scienceLocale (computer software)Corporate governanceLocal governanceSociologyEthnologyPublic administrationLawEconomicsManagementPhilosophyLocal governmentPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article situates the history of local governance reform in New Brunswick in the debate between two theoretical traditions in historical institutionalism: critical juncture analysis and gradual institutional change. While New Brunswick appears to be a case of punctuated equilibrium followed by a half century of stagnation, the local governance system is a case of gradual institutional change dominated by layering. Drawing on Mahoney and Thelen’s theory of gradual institutional change and Tsebelis’ theory of veto players, this paper identifies the relevant change agents and tracks their influence through four prominent reform episodes since the 1970s.Cet article situe l'histoire de la réforme de la gouvernance locale au Nouveau-Brunswick dans le débat entre deux traditions théoriques de l'institutionnalisme historique : l'analyse de la conjoncture critique et le changement institutionnel graduel. Alors que le Nouveau-Brunswick semble être un cas d'équilibre ponctué suivi d'un demi-siècle de stagnation, le système de gouvernance locale est un cas de changement institutionnel graduel dominé par la stratification. En s'appuyant sur la théorie du changement institutionnel graduel de Mahoney et Thelen et sur la théorie des joueurs à veto de Tsebelis, cet article identifie les agents de changement pertinents et suit leur influence à travers quatre épisodes de réforme importants depuis les années 1970.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Political Science ReviewSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207