A New Rubric for ‘Creative City’ Potential in Canada’s Smaller Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada and elsewhere, Richard Florida’s ‘creative capital’ model has gained considerable influence over urban policy and development strategies. The model posits that most cities can be economically successful if they become diverse, high-tech and amenity-rich. The way that creative capital is theorised, quantified and applied, however, tends to marginalise smaller Canadian cities. We use recent census data and qualitative evidence from a study on the social dynamics of economic performance in Kingston, Ontario, to argue that a new rubric based on livability and sustainability provides a more optimistic and empowering picture of creative potential in smaller Canadian cities. Critiques of creative capital thus far have tended to discredit the model entirely, leaving large cities as winners by default in an irrational capitalist system and small cities with few options. Instead, the goal of this paper is to change fundamentally the parameters of the creativity debate for smaller cities by offering new ways to conceptualise and operationalise development in the ‘new economy’.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".