Community economic development in a context of globalization and metropolization: a comparison of four North American cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we highlight the links, few as they are, between metropolitan development institutions and community economic development (CED) organizations in a context of global economy where urban agglomerations compete for investments, while some groups of people are marginalized and some neighbourhoods are declining. First, we begin with a theoretical consideration of globalization, metropolization and community economic development. Second, we examine the relation between institutions responsible for metropolitan development and CED organizations in two Canadian agglomerations, Toronto and Montreal, and two American ones, Boston and Pittsburgh. Third, we suggest some explanations for the weak linkages between CED organizations and metropolitan institutions by raising questions about the identity, the resources and the political aspect of CED organizations, and about the vision of metropolitan actors. L'article met en avant les liens, aussi rares soient‐ils, entre institutions d'aménagement métropolitain et organisations de développement économique communautaire (DEC) dans le contexte d'une économie mondialisée où les agglomérations urbaines rivalisent dans leur quête d'investissements, tandis que certains groupes sont marginalisés et des quartiers déclinent. Ce travail commence par une étude théorique de la mondialisation, de la métropolisation et du développement économique communautaire. Il examine ensuite la relation entre institutions chargées de l'aménagement métropolitain et organisations de DEC dans deux agglomérations canadiennes, Toronto et Montréal, et américaines, Boston et Pittsburgh. Enfin, il tente d'expliquer les liens ténus entre les deux types d'organismes au travers de plusieurs questions sur l'identité, les ressources et l'aspect politique des organisations de CED, ainsi que sur la vision des acteurs métropolitains.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".