MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Community economic development in a context of globalization and metropolization: a comparison of four North American cities

2004· article· en· W2031793882 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)Université du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobalizationContext (archaeology)Economic geographyEconomic globalizationRegional scienceEconomic growthPolitical scienceGeographyEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it