Consistent Business Generators: Urban Leaders in Canada's Next wave/Les Generateurs Continues D'affaires : Les Chefs De Fils Dans la Prochaine Vague Au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigates the current state of evolution of the Canadian economy by focusing on the development of clusters of the innovative firms that find themselves on the leading edge of change in the country--the rapidly-evolving firms that lead the country in revenue growth rate. The analysis compares the evolving spatial distribution of these 'next wave' firms from 1998-2004 with the distribution of establishment firms, the largest companies in the country, over the same period. A decentralization analysis provides evidence suggesting that some decentralizing forces are at work in the next wave. A regional centre analysis demonstrates that previously-observed next wave activity in Vancouver and Victoria in the year 2002 is not a one-time occurrence, but is part of a larger growth trend in the region over the entire study period. A consistency analysis shows that the Toronto region includes several highly consistent urban hosts of next wave firms, but that cities in the Montreal region are more inconsistent next wave hosts. Finally, a sectoral orientation analysis depicts the centrality of Toronto and Montreal in the functioning of the national economy, while the major regional centre of Calgary experiences its greatest next wave success in sectors that play a minor role in next wave growth nationally. RESUMES Cette recherche explore l'etat actuel de l'economie canadienne en ciblant le developpement des grappes de compagnies innovatrices qui se trouvent sur le front du changement dans le pays--les compagnies qui connaissent un developpement rapide en termes du taux de croissance de revenue. L'analyse fait la comparaison entre la distribution de ces compagnies 'prochaine vague' pour la periode 1998-2004 avec celle des plus grandes compagnies au pays pour la meme periode. Une analyse de decentralisation demontre que certaines forces de decentralisation sont a l'oeuvre dans cette prochaine vague. Une analyse de centres regionaux demontre que l'activite de la prochaine vague a Vancouver et Victoria en 2002 n'est pas un phenomene ephemere mais qu'elle fait partie d'une tendance de croissance de plus grande envergure dans la region pour la periode d'etude entiere. Une analyse de coherence demontre que la region de Toronto incorpore plusieurs hotes urbains de ces compagnies de la prochaine vague de facon continue, mais que les villes dans la region de Montreal sont des hotes moins presents de facon continue de la prochaine vague. Enfin, une analyse d'orientation sectorielle fait ressortir la centralite de Toronto et Montreal dans le fonctionnement de l'economie nationale, tandis que le centre regional majeur de Calgary connait sa reussite la plus importante par rapport a la prochaine vague dans des secteurs qui jouent un role mineur dans la croissance de la prochaine vague sur le plan national. ********** Economic development is a concern for all levels of government in Canada. The persistence of regional variation in economic well-being is a primary factor driving political debate and policy-making throughout the country. From federal crown corporations, such as Western Economic Diversification Canada, that are charged with the responsibility for initiating regional economic development projects, to regional and local initiatives such as municipal tax abatements and development incentives targeted at firms willing to locate in a particular community, governments in Canada have been intimately involved in attempts to diversify and strengthen the economic prospects of regions across the country. While the coreperiphery model (McCann and Simmons 2000; Ceh 1997) remains a useful starting point for analyzing regional economic development in Canada, one contribution that geographers can make to the modern advancement of economic development policy in Canada and elsewhere is a measurement and assessment of the degree to which the periphery has diverged into different development regions with differential rates of opportunity, growth, and success (Hutton 2002; Halseth et al 2004). …
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".