Branding Cascadia: Considering Cascadia’s Conflicting Conceptualizations - Who Gets To Decide?
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
This article examines the notion of branding – or place marketing - through the experience of Cascadia – the transborder region of Pacific NorthWest North America. It assesses the Cascadia city-region ‘brand’ in the context of competing definitions about the cross-border region, asking whether a multiplicity of conceptualizations is a definitional disadvantage or strength. It concludes that the urban conception is the most sustainable ‘brand’, and one in keeping with the initial branding of Cascadia around ecological imagery. It examines some of the cooperative – and occasionally conflictual – activity in the Cascadia region and concludes with lessons for city regions – particularly those which are not ‘top- tiered’ in world city terms – from this Mainstreet Cascadia experience, noting that seven ‘globalist’ characteristics stand out as ‘best strategies’ for rebranding local-global relations in terms other than ‘globalized.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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