MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038742454 · doi:10.3138/cpp.39.3.411

Restoring the “Regional” to Regional Policy: A Regional Typology of Western Canada

2013· article· en· W2038742454 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
D. Michael Ray, Rodolphe H. Lamarche, Ian MacLachlan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversité de MonctonCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyDiversification (marketing strategy)Regional policyDiversity (politics)Economic geographyQuarter (Canadian coin)Shift-share analysisGeographyRegional developmentRegional scienceRegional variationScale (ratio)Political scienceDevelopment economicsEconomic growthEconomicsEconomyBusinessCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The analysis and definition of economic regions at the sub-provincial scale is a neglected policy issue in Canada notwithstanding the severity and persistence of disparities in regional growth. Employment growth in the 30 Economic Regions (ERs) of Western Canada 2001–2006 is partitioned into region and industry-mix effects and the resulting regional typology identified. Western Canada became a single development-region in 1988, a quarter of a century ago, with a single policy focus of diversifying its industry-mix. However, its ERs display great diversity in their economic structure and growth rates and they have experienced both the highest and the lowest employment growth rates in Canada. Regional diversity creates policy quandaries that require development policies crafted to individual regional opportunities and needs in place of the one-size-fits-all approach of Western Economic Diversification Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicRegional Economics and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207