MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168821080 · doi:10.1177/0042098009349024

The Occupation—Industry Mismatch: New Trajectories for Regional Cluster Analysis and Economic Development

2009· article· en· W2168821080 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster (spacecraft)Cluster analysisEconomic geographyBusiness clusterWork (physics)Regional scienceEconomicsSociologyEngineeringComputer scienceMechanism (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a natural extension of the current discussion on occupational clustering and economic growth. It is argued that, while there has been increased interest in the role of occupations, little has been done from a methodological and empirical approach to discover how the study of occupations can illuminate the study of industry. Prior work in cluster analysis has generally taken an ‘either/or’ approach towards occupational and industrial analysis. Porter’s clustering model has illuminated the cross-fertilising linkages across industries, but this is only half the story. It is argued that what drives these clusters is not only the industry, but also the people and their occupational skills and, therefore, such analysis must be expanded. Using the case of the IT sector in Los Angeles, the industry approach is combined with an ‘occupational cluster analysis’. It is concluded that this approach leads to a better understanding of regional competitiveness and growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it