Bibliographic record
Abstract
Municipal Boundary Battles explores the motivations, land use effects, and financial implications of municipal boundary adjustments across Canada, focusing mainly on annexations and amalgamations—the most frequent means to adjust boundaries and reform local governments in this country. With a focus on mid-size cities and small towns rather than major Canadian metropolitan areas, the authors uncover hidden motivations, untangle behind-the-scenes political machinations, and document the resulting conflict. Through empirical evidence, case studies, and examples, the collection helps develop generalizations and inform best practices for municipal boundary adjustments and reform. The contributors explain how the esoteric aspects of adjustments work in more practical applications, offering political scientists, geographers, municipal officials, and planning practitioners fresh perspectives that contradict much of the prevailing understanding of boundary adjustments. Contributors: Sandeep Agrawal, Cody Gretzinger, John Heseltine, John Meligrana, Jordan Rea, Amrita Singh, Jon Taylor, Zack Taylor. Afterword by Andrew Sancton.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.005 |
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".