MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792673246 · doi:10.1177/0308518x18760857

Coworking spaces in mid-sized cities: A partner in downtown economic development

2018· article· en· W2792673246 on OpenAlexaffabout
Audrey Jamal

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and Space · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownFlourishingLocal economic developmentLeverage (statistics)Economic growthEconomic geographySharing economyUrban economicsEconomyPolitical scienceGeographyEconomicsEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 21st century economy is knowledge-intensive, creative and flourishing in larger urban centres. Less is known about how smaller urban centres are faring in this new economy. This research aims to fill that gap by exploring whether mid-sized cities, in a designated growth area in Ontario, Canada, can leverage the knowledge economy and foster local economic development to help revitalize their ailing downtowns. Through a case study approach, this research looks at the role that coworking, or shared workspaces, can play in the local economy of mid-sized cities in Ontario. Recognizing the role that community-based actors play in urban affairs, this paper uses a local economic development framework to explore the role of coworking spaces in the urban economic fabric of mid-sized city downtowns. Survey responses and interviews, coupled with insights from global surveys on coworking and a literature review, begin to tell the story of how economic change is playing out in mid-sized cities, illustrating the importance of an innovative, collaborative and inclusive approaches to city building and local economic development.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations114
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and SpaceSame topicFacilities and Workplace ManagementFrench-language works237,207