MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336002697 · doi:10.1353/gpr.2016.0012

Adaptation in a Resource-Based Economy in the Northern Great Plains

2016· article· en· W2336002697 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
M. Rose Olfert, David Natcher

Bibliographic record

VenueGreat Plains research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Resource (disambiguation)Environmental resource managementGeographyNatural resource economicsEconomyEconomicsComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we present a stark depiction of the growth and decline of a resource-dependent prairie region in southwest Saskatchewan, part of the northern Great Plains. Canada’s national development policy at the turn of the 20th century with respect to the region was comprised of immigration incentivized by the Dominion Lands Act which awarded homesteads to European immigrants, the building of a national railroad, and trade protection for eastern manufacturers. The resulting rapid population growth from about 1911 to 1921 in the region spawned a network of rural communities and public and private infrastructure development. However, the rapid growth was especially short-lived in our study area, spanning about 10 to 15 years, followed by more or less continuous decline. The spatial equilibrium framework suggests that the population more or less catapulted into the study area by what turned out to be poorly conceived government policy, and would subsequently exit in large measure, having encountered relatively unfavorable employment and income prospects. Their large-scale exit, as a primary adaptation strategy, would continue until local per capita economic conditions are restored to provincial levels. Per capita incomes and other economic indicators in the study area suggest that out-migration has indeed served this equilibrating function.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreat Plains researchSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207