Approaches to community formation and family in the provincial North: Prince George and British Columbia's Central Interior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
N T H E 1950s, one of my informants told me at the beginning of this study, George was a place to come, and put in your time, and then get the hell out. Then, she continued, I found somewhere along the line, probably in the '60s, that people began to think of Prince George as the place they were going to stay and raise their family. She suggested that many left as soon as they retired, but that that too began to change in the 1980s. She herself remained in the city after living and working there from the mid-1950s to retirement several years ago. The friends she had made and the fact that Prince George had grown on so much in the last forty years, she claimed, left her unwilling to leave at age sixty-five. The point that would like to begin with strikes me as a central consideration in beginning a study of community formation in Prince George in the post-World War II era. The most significant context is rapid growth — growth in population, the economy, and complexity in social interaction. As a city whose history was significantly shaped by the arrival of the pulp industry in the early 1960s, Prince George should be understood as part of a broad pattern of suburbanization seen in comparable locales in Canada's provincial norths. As Ken Coates and William Morrison observed in their recent survey of Canada's middle north, cities like Prince George, with good freight rail connections, access to rich timber resources and new pulp mills, boomed after the Second World War. Unlike mining, pulp production provided long-term stability despite its dependency on international economic cycles. As American and overseas markets developed and
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.060 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".