The identification of employment centres in Canadian metropolitan areas: the example of Montreal, 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
The intrametropolitan distribution of economic activities and, specifically, the formation of suburban employment centres has become a major research and policy issue. In spite of an increasing number of detailed analyses of the geography of employment in individual metropolitan areas, no generally accepted and systematic methodology for identifying employment centres exists. Comparisons between metropolitan areas have been highly limited due to both a lack of consistent and comparable data and a plethora of methods. We first present an overview of various methods that have been used to identify employment centres. Using Montreal as a case study, we then evaluate the suitability of various methods in the light of available data on job location in Canadian metropolitan areas. The method that yields the best results is one based upon dual criteria applied at the census tract level: a total employment threshold and the ratio of employment to the resident workers. We use this method to identify the form of the Montreal space‐economy in 1996. The identification of a suitable, although imperfect, method represents a first step towards being able to more objectively and systematically examine a wide range of issues concerning metropolitan economic structure.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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