MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041300138 · doi:10.4312/dela.21.7.97-107

Canadian cities in transition: new sources of urban difference

2004· article· en· W2041300138 on OpenAlexaffabout
Larry S. Bourne

Bibliographic record

VenueDela · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaEconomic geographyImmigrationGeographyGlobal cityGlobalizationCity regionCapital (architecture)Government (linguistics)Political scienceEconomyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cities, increasingly, are the principal arenas in which global, national and local forces inter-sect. Canadian cities are no exception. Those cities are currently undergoing a series of profound and irreversible transitions as a result of external forces originating from different sources and operating at different spatial scales. Specifically, this paper argues that Cana-dian cities are being transformed in a markedly uneven fashion through the intersection of changes in national and regional economies, the continued demographic transition, and shifts in government policy on the one hand, and through increased levels and new sources of immigration, and the globalization of capital and trade flows, on the other hand. These shifts, in turn, are producing new patterns of external dependence, a more fragmented urban system, and continued metropolitan concentration. They are also leading to increased socio-cultural differences, with intense cultural diversity in some cities juxtaposed with homoge-neity in other cities, and to new sets of urban winners and losers. In effect, these transitions are creating new sources of difference - new divides - among and within the country=s urban centres, augmenting or replacing the traditional divides based on city-size, location in the heartland or periphery, and local economic base.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDelaSame topicUrbanization and City PlanningFrench-language works237,207