Canadian intergovernmental relations and the reform of local government :
Bibliographic record
Abstract
complex, often to the point of the absurd, due to the many varied actors and actions which are involved.Because of this complexity the need of an organizing or conceptual framework is clear.At the same time, however, the need for an organizing conceptual framework must not obscure the first task of this study, and of theory itself, which is description.Accordingly, the general conceptual framework utilized in this study is what is conmionly referred to as "structural-functionalism," which is derived from the pio neering works of Talcott Parsons.Functionalism, however, is the term used throughout this study as a means for dif ferentiating the work cf Parsons from those variations penned by other scholars such as Gabriel Almond. 1 The general theory of functionalism^ is basically a collection of interrelated definitions, categories and q u e s tions.Functional theory is mainly a research strategy; or, a group of suggestions about which are the relevant ques tions to ask and which would be the most useful concepts to employ.In this study no assumption is made as to the utility of functional analysis to all concrete research problems.Rather, it is assumed that some : f Parson's basic concepts seem useful as guides to political research of the type embodied in this study.At this point it should be noted that there is often a built-in conflict between the descriptive and the theoret ical purposes of a study such as this one.When this clash occurs in this study, the decision will be to pursue a course of priority to description.This course has been decided upon because the first purpose conceived for this study is to describe and analyze the Ontario government's program of regional local governments rather than to make a theoretical contribution to the literature.The following brief discussion of functionalism relies heavily upon
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".