MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595040793 · doi:10.52324/001c.8200

Co-operatives and Rural Community Population Growth: Evidence from Canada

2009· article· en· W1595040793 on OpenAlex
Chipo Kangayi, M. Rose Olfert, Mark D. Partridge

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Regional Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsObsolescenceSocial capitalPopulation growthBusinessPopulationEconomicsCapital (architecture)CurrencyEconomic growthDevelopment economicsLabour economicsGeographyPolitical scienceMonetary economicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The social economy holds promise for rural community development through local capacity building, improving political engagement, expanding networks, and increasing productivity by reducing transactions costs. In this study, the contribution of co-op membership to rural community population growth is estimated, along with standard growth determinants. With minor exceptions, the results do not support the expectation that co-ops improve the population growth prospects of rural communities. Currency (or obsolescence) of this particular type of social capital may be a factor. Alternatively, social capital in the form of co-ops may be serving as a substitute for private sector enterprise or other forms of social capital.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.242 · 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