Bringing Municipalities into Rural Community and Economic Development: Cases from Atlantic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In rural development literature, subsidiarity and the merits of local community participation are increasingly extolled. Targeted, nationally-derived sectoral (e.g., agricultural) policies and subsidies are increasingly rejected for a more inclusive, place-based, partnership-driven, community-led, and investment-oriented approach to rural development. This shift can be seen across OECD countries and has been lauded by the organization as ‘a new paradigm for rural development.’ As such, rural development is conceptualized as a process that emanates from the local level, involving a variety of stakeholders in decision making, such that policy development is viewed as more participatory, reflective of and responsive to community needs. Given this, what role (and capacity) might there be for municipalities to meaningfully engage in rural development activities? This paper examines this question through a case study of two rural Atlantic Canadian communities. In doing so, it finds that these two rural municipalities are institutionally constrained from engaging in rural development initiatives and that provincial and federal funders are focused on economic, rather than community, development. It is argued that municipal capacity needs to be greatly enhanced through institutionalized mechanisms in order for them to become meaningful partners in the development process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".