Campus in the Country: Community College Involvement in Rural Community Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is an investigation into college involvement in rural community development through an examination of three cases in eastern, western and northern Canada where this work was reported to be going well. The inquiry revolved around what colleges do, that is, what kinds of approaches and projects are undertaken, how this work is supported or constrained, how college staff are recruited and trained for this work, and how well it is being done, or how success is defined and evaluated. The observations from these cases were compared with relevant research around the roles of community colleges, the nature of rural challenges, and the field of community development. Community development revolves around increasing the skills, knowledge, and abilities of residents, and building the ability of the community to respond to changing circumstances. \nThe cases in this study were in contexts of resource industries in transition, usually related to trends in economic globalization. The communities were also impacted by their distance from urban economic and political centres. As community needs were identified, it was apparent that economic and social challenges were inter-related, and that available opportunities required specialized workforce training or retraining, as well \niii \nas supports for business development. Although community development activities were not well supported by public policy and programs, the colleges were involved in a wide range of development approaches, some embedded into regular college operations, and others specifically organized for particular purposes. \nTheories of forms of capital, particularly those based on the writings of Bourdieu (1986, 1993) enhance the understanding of college involvement in rural community development. College staff, particularly rural campus managers, took the lead in community work, and relied heavily on their connections and networks, or social capital, as well as “border knowledge”, or local cultural capital, to facilitate community projects. However, the reliance on local social and cultural capital was often associated with the neglect of some important groups and issues. But overall, in spite of many challenges, these colleges were key players in their communities and demonstrated the value of the diverse and flexible roles that community colleges can play.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".