Voting with Their Feet: Jobs versus Amenities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The determinants of rural and urban community population change over the period 1991–2001 are investigated at a very fine level of disaggregation for Canada. The study examines the influence of local amenities, economic factors, and agglomeration economies on population growth for age cohorts starting from the very young to the elderly. Motivated by the objective of assessing the overall jobs versus people question in economic development, the emphasis is on estimating the relative contribution of groupings of variables in explaining the variations in population change rather than the contribution of individual variables. Results indicate that rural and urban populations are influenced to differing degrees by amenity, economic, and urban scale groupings of variables and that there are variations among age cohorts in both urban and rural areas. While economic variables are the most influential in population change for all rural cohorts, their contribution somewhat diminishes with age. In urban areas, amenity, and economic variable groupings have approximately equal importance across all cohorts. For the key young adult cohort, the economic grouping is clearly the most influential in rural areas, while it is a close second to amenities in urban areas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".