City Size and Academic Focus: Exploring Trends in Canadian Urban Geography, Planning and Policy Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1996 and 2001 almost half of the cities in Canada lost population. This uneven pattern of growthprompted an examination of the English-language urban geography, planning and policy-related academicliterature, which determined that Canadian urban academic journals fixated on large, growing metropolitanareas. Revisiting this literature a decade later, large cities have continued to dominate the academic discourse. Although articles dedicated to smaller and mid-sized cities are still relatively underrepresented in the literature, research focusing on more than one size of urban area has grown tremendously refl ecting an emerging interest in regional connectivity and a rise in the perception of urban areas as systems, rather than individual entities.
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 | 0.028 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.063 | 0.159 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".