MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2207700430 · doi:10.1080/21681376.2015.1116959

Reinforcing unevenness: post-crisis geography and the spatial selectivity of the state

2015· article· en· W2207700430 on OpenAlexaff
Mikael Omstedt

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Studies Regional Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional resilience and development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAusterityFinancial crisisConvergence (economics)Economic geographyPsychological resilienceState (computer science)PoliticsEconomicsEconomic systemDevelopment economicsEconomyPolitical economyPolitical scienceGeographyEconomic growthMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the unevenness of the 2007–08 crisis by examining the literature of England's North–South divide. From the 1980s this longstanding divide was exacerbated as a result of promoting London as a global financial hub, so when the crisis hit many expected some regional economic convergence as redundancies spread throughout the financial sector. This has, however, not taken place and previous patterns of uneven development have rather been reinforced. Attempts have been made to explain this deepening of established geographical patterns as the result of different regions’ degrees of economic resilience, but this approach is, however, problematic because it naturalizes crises, downscales responsibility and neglects politics. Inspired by Martin Jones’s concept of the ‘spatial selectivity of the state’, the paper will rather argue that to understand the uneven geography of the economic crisis, one has to look beyond localized resilience to how the state’s austerity policies have displaced the crisis’s impacts away from its origins in a London-centred financial sector.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegional Studies Regional ScienceSame topicRegional resilience and developmentFrench-language works237,207