2010 Budget Committee Recommended Operating BudgetCONTENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Operating Budget and seeks Council‟s approval for the services, service levels and spending plans detailed therein. The 2011 BC Recommended Tax Supported Operating Budget achieves the Mayor‟s budget directions. It is balanced with no unfunded „gaps‟ (or unspecified reductions); includes no major service cuts; and neither residential nor non-residential property tax rates will be increased. Given no committed Provincial Assistance for TTC Operations, the continuation of the City Manager‟s Four Point Plan was key to achieving a balanced budget with no property tax increase. Through the 2010 hiring slowdown initiative, constraints on discretionary spending, as well as higher than anticipated revenues, a 2010 projected surplus of $268 million was realized. Service efficiency reviews resulted in expenditure reductions of $57 million. In addition, the strategy to pay down debt resulted in reduced debt service costs; and the City was successful in obtaining permanent provincial funding of $52 million for the full 50 % cost sharing of Ontario Works Administration costs. It is noted that unsustainable revenues of about $372 million used to balance the 2011 BC
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.190 | 0.147 |
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".