A Tale of Four Cities: Intrametropolitan Employment Distribution in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottawa – Hull, 1981 – 1996
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
Since the late 1980s there has been considerable interest in the intrametropolitan location of economic activity. A growing number of studies examine in detail the spatial structure of particular metropolitan areas, or present comparisons at a relatively aggregated spatial and sectoral level. From these studies, certain authors have deduced a general pattern of metropolitan spatial development—one involving the suburbanisation of economic activity and the weakening of the central business district. The scarcity of comparable data covering different cities renders these generalisations somewhat tentative, however. In this paper we use a unique database to compare the spatial structures, and their evolution over time, for the four largest Canadian metropolitan areas: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottawa – Hull. These data allow highly disaggregated spatial (census-tract level) and sectoral (thirty economic sectors) analyses. The results, which illustrate the existence of three distinct patterns of development amongst these four metropolitan areas, call into question the existence of a single model. In doing so they also raise a series of questions regarding possible explanations for these differences.
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 | 0.000 | 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