Planning Northwest British Columbia economic development : a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis is; a retrospective examination of two economic plans and their respective planning processes, undertaken for the same area during the same time period. The geographic setting for the thesis is northwestern British Columbia. The time period covered by the review is approximately 1980 to 1985. The thesis describes the differences which can occur between the two plans and searches for variations in the planning processes which seem to account for these differences. The economic plan produced by the British Columbia provincial government recommends a future regional economy based on large-scale, capital-intensive technology and functional integration of the region with a world economy. The planning process used was centralized and technocratic. The other plan, produced by the regional Economic Development Commission, also recommends functional integration but is oriented towards sustained community development and appropriate (i.e. small-scale, locally-controlled) technology. The plan is informed by a locally-based, participatory process. Categories for comparing the two plans and processes are drawn from regional development planning literature, planning theory literature and review of the cases themselves. Nine planning process variables are employed in the analysis. The study concludes that the critical planning process variables which affect the content of the plans are: the level of public participation in each process, the manner in which control over planning process is centralized or decentralized, and the spatial interest of key actors. The study method used, an ex post facto case study, however, can only infer causal relationships between process and plan variables; it does not provide certain knowledge of these relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".