MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2480118192

Trends in Service Delivery: Examples From Rural and Small Town Canada, 1998 to 2005

2006· article· en· W2480118192 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Greg Halseth, Laura Ryser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringService (business)Rural areaEconomic growthLocal governmentEconomic restructuringService delivery frameworkGovernment (linguistics)BusinessSmall townLocal economic developmentEconomicsSocioeconomicsPolitical sciencePublic administrationMarketingFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past two decades, social and economic restructuring in rural and small town places across Canada has been accompanied by changes in the availability of local services. From retail to social, health, and government services, changes in local availability are occurring at the same time as such services are increasingly needed to support local economic revitalization in response to economic change. Drawing upon a seven year study of service availability in 19 rural and small town places, this paper explores two key questions. The first concerns trends in service availability over time. The second concerns patterns with respect to the location of those services. The findings highlight general trends towards service reductions and regionalization. The implications from these findings may be significant as both outcomes have the potential to erode crucial local supports necessary for economic renewal and transition in rural and small town Canada.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.018
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations87
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207