Diversity and employment growth in Canada, 1971– 2001: can diversification policies succeed?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we explore the link between diversity in the local economy, the process of diversification and employment growth. To do so, we first examine diversification trends between 1971 and 2001 across 382 Canadian areas (urban and rural). We then examine whether or not the more diversified areas display faster employment growth. Over some periods and for some types of area they do, but over other periods they do not. Furthermore, there is no clear link between the process of diversification and growth. Also, proximity to a large diversified economic unit (metropolitan areas) tends to be associated with growth; thus, it is not only the local characteristics of regions that determine their growth levels. Our evidence suggests that economies associated with diversity can occur concurrently with economies associated with specialisation. In the light of these complex relationships, we conclude that diversification policies are difficult to justify on the grounds of employment growth and would in any case be difficult to implement successfully due to the overall inertia observed in diversity levels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it