A policy analysis of digital strategies: Brisbane vs. Vancouver
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
A growing number of cities around the world have now realised the need to strategically capitalise on the rapidly growing digital economy. In mid-2013, cities of Brisbane, Australia and Vancouver, Canada both released their 'Digital Strategy' documents to strengthen their economy by enhancing digital connections amongst citizens, business, and the whole city as a digital organisation. The paper critically investigates the digital strategies developed for the two cities to understand how they utilise the potentials of the digital economy in their respected cities and regions. The results identify fundamental differences in the two documents' core focus that firstly define different roles for the digital strategies in Brisbane vs. Vancouver, and secondly could highly affect the implications of the strategies for the two cities' overall economic development. Nevertheless, both Vancouver and Brisbane are still in the early days of implementing their digital strategies, and the paper has to be understood as a prelude to further empirical investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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