IAPR POLICY BRIEF SERIES BIG IDEAS (?) FOR MUNICIPAL FINANCES IN ALBERTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Municipal finances have of late become important topics of concern for policy-makers. A good deal of concern has been expressed that municipalities have too limited a menu of revenue choices from which to choose and that this is constraining their ability to facilitate the proper functioning and growth of large cities. Solutions that have been bandied about include those which would require a role for the federal government in municipal affairs; a role not supported by the Canadian constitution. Although a good deal of hand-wringing is done over the question of the sustainability of municipal finances, there is little in the way of hard evidence to support or deny the notion that municipalities have insufficient revenues to satisfy their expenditure responsibilities. This paper presents and discusses some new but preliminary evidence on the issue. It concludes that much more work needs to be done investigating the fiscal sustainability of cities before dramatic changes in intergovernmental relations in Canada are considered. 1.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.004 |
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".