Replication Data for: Measuring Accountability in Interlocal Agreements between Indigenous and Local Governments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interlocal agreements are becoming an increasingly popular policy tool for facilitating intergovernmental coordination and cooperation in Canada and the United States. Surprisingly, Indigenous and local governments are also turning to these agreements to accomplish their goals despite long histories of colonialism, exploitation and dispossession by the settler state towards Indigenous communities. To what extent do interlocal agreements between Indigenous and municipal governments require stringent accountability measures to facilitate intergovernmental coordination? Using a hierarchical Bayesian item response theory model, we explore this question by analyzing 317 interlocal agreements between Indigenous and municipal communities in Canada. We find that accountability strength varies significantly across agreements, contrary to our expectation that accountability requirements would be strong across agreements due to the long history of colonialism. We also find that some of the variation may be a function of the policy area addressed by each agreement, although this finding is likely the result of measurement uncertainty in our estimates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.012 |
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".