MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1568538246 · doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.1050209

Economic development approaches in a changing global economy: what do practitioners think?

2015· article· en· W1568538246 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Research & Practice · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic restructuringRestructuringRhetoricPolitical scienceLocal economic developmentEconomic growthEconomic systemEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How to best arrange locally based economic development has been an issue of continuing importance and interest throughout history. Although some limited scholarly works exist, much remains to be known about how communities' economic development efforts are organized and whether they are changing in response to global economic changes and conditions. The lacuna is particularly obvious for communities in Ontario, Canada. In light of the recent calls by policy evaluators and critics for restructuring of policy by local communities, this article reports on a study that explored the perspectives of practitioners of economic development approaches. The study shows that locally based economic development has introduced not only rhetoric but also a fundamental shift in activities. The study offers several possible reasons for a change in approaches.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.287
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.126 · 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