Place-based Governance in Newfoundland and Labrador: A Wicked Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The British refer to wicked issues as those which are complex, non-linear, span conventional boundaries, require the gaze of many stakeholders, cannot be managed by single agencies acting autonomously, and depend on systemic change for real progress.3 Young people these days refer to wicked ideas, games, fashions, etc., meaning excellent, amazing or cool. We may interpret place-based governance as wicked from both angles, but in no way do we intend to imply that it is wicked in the biblical sense. Collaborative, more devolved initiatives have become a keystone of government policy across a wide range of jurisdictions in the last twenty years. In the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Strategic Social Plan (SSP) is best viewed as a single jurisdiction’s attempt to achieve this in the areas of social policy development and program delivery. A critical component of the SSP was meaningful involvement of both the voluntary, community-based sector and citizens. Implicit in the Plan was a significant overhaul in the way Government did its business. It was not an integrated set of policies but a process to strengthen social planning and make services more responsive to the needs of people and communities. SSP implementation began in 1998 and finished in 2004. A case study of its origins, structure, political and cultural
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".