Making the least of our differences? Trends in local economic development in Ontario and Michigan, 1990–2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper examines trends in local economic development policies in Canadian and US cities over the past fifteen years. Using data drawn from surveys conducted at four points in time ‐ 1990, 1994, 2001, and 2005 ‐ the study provides a longitudinal assessment of change versus stability in overall approach toward economic development. Findings indicate that Canadian and US cities have followed relatively similar trajectories in the extent to which they use particular economic development policies. Overall, the most common economic development policies in both nations have been and continue to be very similar: infrastructure investment generally, land development, basic promotion, and the use of special events to attract and retain businesses and residents and to promote the community. Thus, there is a visible pattern of the “least of differences” among cities in Michigan and Ontario in their development strategies and approaches. Sommaire: Le présent article examine les tendances qui se sont dégagées des politiques de développement économique local dans les villes canadiennes et américaines, au cours des quinze dernières années. À l'aide des données tirées de sondages réalisés à quatre moments différents, à savoir en 1990, 1994, 2001 et 2005, l‘étude fournit une évaluation longitudinale des changements par rapport à la stabilité dans l'approche globale à l’égard du développement économique. Les résultats indiquent que les villes canadiennes et américaines ont suivi des trajectoires relativement similaires dans la mesure où elles ont recours à des politiques de développement économique particulières. Dans l'ensemble, les politiques de développement économique les plus courantes dans ces deux pays ont été et continuent d‘être très similaires: l'investissement dans l'infrastructure en général, l'aménagement du territoire, la promotion de base, et le recours à des événements spéciaux pour attirer et retenir les entreprises et les résidents et pour promouvoir la communauté. Ainsi, il existe parmi certaines villes du Michigan et de l'Ontario un modèle visible de la “moindre des différences” dans leurs stratégies et leurs méthodes de développement.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".