Decentralization or Recentralization? A Question of Household versus Population Enumeration, Canadian Metropolitan Areas 1971–1996
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author considers patterns of population growth and density occurring in Canadian metropolitan areas (CMAs) over the 25-year period 1971–96. Two different sets of data, population and household, are examined with the aid of distance-decay density gradients and enumeration of intrazonal change in census tracts defined as core area (census tracts immediately adjacent to the central business district), inner city, and suburban. Important differences are found when household data are used in lieu of population data. In the core and inner city, household change points towards an overall pattern of recentralization and, in the suburbs, to intensification of development—albeit muted. This contrasts with an accentuated trend to decentralization witnessed in the population-based analyses. The author concludes that centralization is an active force in most CMAs, although it is not as strong a force as decentralization. It is also suggested that there is great diversity between the twenty-two CMAs that make up the dataset. Most important is the demonstration that evidence based on population trends alone is not sufficient to gauge changing patterns of intrametropolitan population distribution.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".