Are major canadian city-regions monocentric, polycentric, or dispersed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relatively little research has explored spatial structure in modern major Canadian regions. Three common models are monocentricity, polycentricity, and dispersion, but these are not always mutually exclusive in the complex spatial structures of contemporary city-regions. Shifts between these models are discussed in the context of three explanations of economic growth and restructuring: accessibility, municipal competition, and globalization. All three explanations suggest a trend away from monocentricity. While this appears clearly in US cities, disagreement surrounds whether Canadian cities are following the same path. This study uses cross-sectional data from InfoGroup in 2011 to estimate the relative strengths of monocentricity, polycentricity, and dispersion for characterizing eight major regions. Results indicate that elements of each model are evident in all eight study regions, but each tends to dominate in different contexts. When focusing on Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, results imply that all three forces which guide spatial structure play a role and that job centers appear to play a particularly important structural role in larger regions.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".