TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 05/07/12 FROM: Eric Holmes, City Manager Subject: Adoption of City of Vancouver Financial Policies Objective: To approve updates to the City’s Financial Policies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Council identified the top eight goals for the organization to pursue during the balance of 2012 and determined how the goals are aligned with the Strategic Commitments detailed in the City’s Strategic Plan. One of the eight goals was to develop a comprehensive update to the City’s Financial Policies to help guide the City to long-term fiscal sustainability. This goal aligns with the Strategic Commitment of being an Accountable, Responsible Government. Staff has reviewed the City’s existing Financial Polices and proposed updates, changes, and additions to incorporate best practices and sound policies in order to strengthen the City’s fiscal sustainability over the long term. Advantage(s): The proposed updates to the City’s Financial Policies strengthen an already strong set of policies and reinforce the City’s financial foundation in preparation for the development of the 2013-14 Biennial Budget. Disadvantage(s): No disadvantages anticipated. Budget Impact: Any budget impacts resulting from the phased-in implementation of the Financial Policies of the City of Vancouver will be discussed during the 2013-2014 budget process.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.594 | 0.322 |
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".