MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W776961237

MUNICIPAL MERGERS: THE NEW CITY OF TORONTO EXPERIENCE

2000· article· en· W776961237 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W L Kelman

Bibliographic record

VenueITE journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaRestructuringBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Local governmentCredibilityService delivery frameworkPublic relationsAction planService (business)FinanceMarketingPublic administrationManagementPolitical scienceEconomicsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After years of commissions and task forces, new City of Toronto was created on January 1, 1998, amalgamating regional government of Metropolitan Toronto and six local area municipalities. The Province of Ontario's publicly stated goals for amalgamation of six local governments and regional government of Toronto into a single city included achieving cost reductions through eliminating duplication, streamlining operations, and improving efficiency in service delivery. Based on reports from city's Finance Department, city's 3-year amalgamation savings target of $150 million appears to be on track. In addition to massive restructuring of staff and services, city staff have had to contend with three other activity areas while delivering regular services to citizens of Toronto: corporate initiatives/one-time events, financial/human resources information systems, and staff recruitment. The transformation has resulted in following changes for staff: increased work hours and stress; reduced productivity, quality, and morale; and a loss of linkage to staff in other divisions. A four-step action plan was developed by Transportation Division: focus on client services and projects/activities that will enhance delivery of these services; be aware of need for formal training/counseling to help employees cope with change; encourage staff to develop new skills required to achieve their job objectives and attain job satisfaction; and bridge credibility gap between mission statement's the best municipal government in Canada and reality of downsizing and saving dollars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0190.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueITE journalSame topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207