<i>Places Rated Almanacs</i> and roll out neoliberalism
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine the context of the emergence of Places Rated Almanacs (PRA), their success as a source of place‐based knowledge, and their limitations as predictors of patterns of migration. The paper addresses whether, as an entrepreneurial product created in the spaces arising from the roll back of the nation state and the foregrounding of the local, competitive marketplace, PRAs continue to have relevance. It examines the utility of this knowledge resource in a new era where specific talent attraction and retention is central to neoliberal strategies for economic development. Design/methodology/approach The paper offers an analysis of the correlations between PRA ratings and recent migration patterns is undertaken to explore their explanatory power. The contemporary significance of PRA is examined both in terms of the almanac's resonance with actual patterns of migration in the USA, and its resonance with contemporary debates over talent flows. Findings It is concluded that place ratings offer only a partial resonance with actual patterns of mobility. Despite the changing political economic context with new neoliberal agendas in place competition, there is potentially continuing utility of such PRAs. The paper argues that greater engagement with contemporary debates over talent attraction, place attachment and social learning would enhance the knowledge basis of such guides. Originality/value Within a knowledge economy, the attraction and retention of key talent has become vital. Place rating guides can be a useful resource as a tool within this neoliberal strategy for economic growth. This paper indicates how the established guides such as the PRA need to be updated to retain their utility.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it