Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternatives are required to replace the dominant paradigm of modernization if the residents and communities of Canada's Northwest Territories are to benefit fully from northern development activities. One such alternative is a bottom-up, community-based development process wherein communities engage in active planning to control and manage the resources of their regions. The purpose of this study is to investigate the implications of staple theory, a model of economic growth based on the export of primary resources, and community development approaches for development in the Northwest Territories. The thesis is that an Anarchist formulation of staple theory provides a theoretical foundation for an alternative, community-based approach to northern regional development. The study describes the contexts of development theory, Canadian regional development, and the dependent nature of northern development. Staple theory, in a basic descriptive form, is then introduced. The prescriptive interpretations of staple theory posited by W.A. Mackintosh, H.A. Innis, and W.L. Gordon and M.H. Watkins are discussed. The study then compares staple theory's prescriptions with those indicated by the Anarchist approach to regional development and community development literature. The combined prescriptions are placed within the context of northern development. The study concludes by outlining the implications of staple theory and community development approaches for regional planning theory and practice in the Northwest Territories. In the context of northern development, the study recommends the adoption of a community-based development policy and a reconnection of regions to their resources as suggested by both the staple theory and community development approaches.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.005 |
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".