Space, Time, and Local Employment Growth: An Application of Spatial Regression Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Local and regional employment growth is generally studied either by searching for local qualitative explanatory factors such as governance, synergy between firms, and milieu effects, or by searching for general growth factors using statistical techniques. The body of work that relies on this approach has tended, in keeping with economics’ nomothetic tradition, to assume that local and regional growth factors are constant over space. The focus of this paper is on exploring the spatial stationarity of employment growth factors in Canada, but it also seeks to clarify some of the broad principles behind spatial regression techniques in order to provide a point of entry and a conceptual framework for empirical researchers. To do so, we apply a recently developed technique, Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR), and we explore the method's advantages and limits for answering our research question. We find evidence that growth factors differ across Canada, but we also conclude that the GWR technique, given the number and shape of regions available for our analysis and given certain limitations that are currently inherent to the method, can only provide tentative and exploratory results.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".