Questioning Neoendogeneity: Cases of Community Economic Development Practice from Atlantic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neoendogenous approaches to community economic development have risen to prominence in recent years. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has described such approaches as nothing less than “the new rural paradigm.” But is this paradigm reflected in practice? This research examines the community economic development landscape—from the perspectives of federal and provincial funders to that of community-based groups—through two Atlantic Canadian case studies (Marystown, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Montague, Prince Edward Island). Governmental funders are found to prioritize economic and business development objectives above social, cultural, and community-oriented ones. These preferences shape the types of projects that are funded and the community groups that propel them, undermining the adoption of truly neoendogenous, community-driven practices. Dans les dernières années, les approches néo-endogènes envers le développement économique communautaire ont cru en importance. L’Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OECD) a décrit ces approches comme entraînant ni plus ni moins qu’un « nouveau paradigme rural ». Mais la pratique reflète-t-elle ce paradigme? Cette étude examine le contexte pour le développement communautaire économique—du point de vue des subventionneurs fédéraux et provinciaux et de celui des groupes communautaires—au moyen de deux études de cas menées dans deux villes des provinces de l’Atlantique (c’est-à-dire Marystown, Terre-Neuve et Labrador, et Montague, Île-du-Prince-Édouard). Il se trouve que les subventionneurs gouvernementaux donnent la priorité aux objectifs de développement économique et commercial aux dépens des objectifs sociaux, culturels et communautaires. Cette priorité a un impact sur les types de projets subventionnés et sur les groupes communautaires qui les appuient, entravant ainsi l’adoption de pratiques véritablement néo-endogènes dans les communautés.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".