Under close watch provincial mediation in federal-municipal relations : the case of Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Without going into the full history of Quebec’s municipal system, it is useful to recall that, under \nSection 92 of the British North America Act, municipalities are an area of provincial \nresponsibility. This means, to use the recognized expression, that municipalities are the \n―creatures‖ of the provinces. From a legal standpoint, the municipalities’ existence and the \npowers they have been allotted depend on the will of the provincial government. Nevertheless, \nmunicipalities do have some autonomy, as demonstrated, for example, by the weight of \nmunicipal-sourced financing in inter-governmental arrangements surrounding infrastructure \nprojects. Constitutional prohibitions notwithstanding, does this autonomy not open the way to \ndirect relations between federal authorities and the municipal sector? In the first part of this \npaper, we note the fact that in Quebec, as a general rule, municipal-federal relations are the object \nof very strict and unavoidable oversight and control, except in the case of the management offederal assets — which we l illustrate with two examples. In the second part of the paper, we \ndefine the nature of the Quebec provincial government’s role in other public policy areas covered \nwithin the framework the Public Policy in Municipalities (―Politiques publiques et municipalités‖ \n— PPM) research initiative. Finally, we attempt to explain a mode of management that appears \nless as a form of mediation in municipal-federal relations than as a strict regulation of \nintergovernmental relations. These relations nonetheless sometimes occur in a less formalized \nfashion — which we again illustrate with two examples.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".