A comparative analysis of place branding in Michigan and Ontario
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
Place branding has increasingly been adopted as a municipal initiative to change the trajectory of local economic development. Specifically, local municipalities and communities have used place branding not only as a response to the influence of globalization and neo-liberalism, but also economic challenges and restructuring. Like any other initiative, the ultimate goal is to enhance the economic and social well-being of local jurisdictions. Although a popular strategy, it is not clear if and how locally specific factors mediate the process. By comparing two cross-border geographical areas, this study attempts to identify how regional variability in the manifestation of politicaleconomic forces, as well as geographical influences, affects the use of place branding at local scales. Every municipality in Michigan (n = 1774) and Ontario (n = 414) was systematically examined for the presence and message of local place brands as presented through logos and slogans. The comparative analysis demonstrated that Ontario’s municipalities utilized place branding to a greater extent, and that the dominant messages differ by region. Further, this analysis shows that – beyond political differences – geographical context appears to have an effect on both local place branding usage and message.
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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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