The Great Divide: Economic Development Theory Versus Practice-A Survey of the Current Landscape
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
As a scholarly field, economic development is a theoretical exploration with very real implications for place. As a practice, economic development is an essential component of local policy and governing and a perceived driver of success and vitality for cities and regions alike. The notable distinction between practice and theory may explain the lack of scholarly consensus and the ambiguity in effectiveness of the practice of development. Using a three-tiered approach, we undertake a comparative analysis of the way in which practitioners and scholars undertake economic development. Through a study of Economic Development Quarterly journal keywords and a review of nine cities’ economic development initiatives, we assess the most frequent topics and initiatives within the discipline. Using the International Economic Development Council best practice awards, we look at what is generally viewed as “successful.” We conclude with an assessment of the general development landscape, considering implications to our findings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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