From Tinkering to Transformation: Gradual Institutional Change in New Brunswick’s Local Governance System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".