Second Growth: Community Economic Development in Rural British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Second Growth: Community Economic Development in Rural British Columbia , Sean Markey, John Pierce, Mark Roseland and Kelly Vodden, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2005, pp. 352. This theoretically rich, community economic development (CED) work, written by four members of the Centre for Sustainable Community Development (formerly the Community Economic Development Centre) at Simon Fraser University, is the product of a three-year participatory-action-based research project involving four “forest-based” British Columbia communities. Two Aboriginal communities and two municipalities were case studied as part of an action-learning exercise in order to gain “insight into the apparent conflict between the economic imperative and fluidity of capital versus the lived worlds of rural and small time places” (3). Through their empirical studies of the four communities, the authors argue that CED, fostered at the local level, can allow for the kind of capacity building that is needed to create diversified, sustainable economic futures for resource-based rural and small-town communities. They are careful, however, to distinguish between the use of CED as a “localized and palliative strategy” for marginalized communities caught in the throes of political and economic dependency, and the possibilities for a more robust (theoretically balanced) version of CED, which can become part and parcel of rural and small-town locally-based planning and development. While recognizing the appropriateness of CED in either situation, they argue that a host of negative economic and political factors, which are intensifying under the direction of neo-liberal ideological thinking, have resulted in a pressing need for the more robust form of community development and corresponding revitalization strategies.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".