MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2274572507 · doi:10.1111/grow.12150

Community Changes and Growth in Small Cities: Resident Perceptions of Growth in Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

2016· article· en· W2274572507 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Doug Ramsey, Alex C. Michalos, Derrek Eberts

Bibliographic record

VenueGrowth and Change · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceUrbanizationPerceptionEconomic growthEducational attainmentGeographySocioeconomicsRural areaRegional sciencePolitical scienceDemographic economicsSociologyPsychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While research on rural depopulation and urbanization to large cities has dominated the literature for decades, small city growth has been largely ignored. Yet, small cities are important to the regional systems in which they are located, including serving as centres to their rural surround. This paper is concerned about growth and change in small cities. Using Brandon, Manitoba as an example, citizen perceptions of a range of specific aspects of city growth are analyzed. The study is based on a household postal survey conducted in May and June 2010 in which 2,500 randomly selected households in Brandon, Manitoba received questionnaires. The results are based on the 518 useable, completed questionnaires that were returned. Differences in perceptions of the pace of change in a range of aspects of development were found based on income, age, educational attainment, employment status, and home ownership. No differences were found based on gender. The paper concludes with comments about how city governments need to be aware of citizen perceptions when pursuing and managing development. The paper also illustrated the importance of citizen perceptions in understanding the pace and direction of change in small cities.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGrowth and ChangeSame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207