Rural Governmentality in Alberta: A Case Study of Neoliberalism in Rural Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rural communities in Canada have faced a long history of capital and labour flight, resource extraction, and political marginalization. At the same time, despite decades of efforts toward rural development and economic/social diversification, there is little evidence of change or improved resilience in rural Canada. This article seeks to examine this lack of change against the backdrop of that developmental history, and the underlying logics that have informed rural policy-making. Focusing on Alberta, this paper argues that rural communities face a third phase of developmental approaches embedded within a neoliberal governmentality, one that emphasizes equality of opportunity, competition, capacity-building, and collaboration. This approach is simultaneously situated within a broader neoliberal objective of defining both citizens and rural communities as economic actors. In turn, this article examines the scope, scale, and role of energy and agricultural investments as a demonstration of how neoliberal governmentality structures not only how rural development is framed, but constructs economic agency for rural communities as “the only game in town” for the very populations that bear the costs. As a result, the historical failure of rural development is unlikely to change, yet, rather than be understood as problematic, will increasingly be seen as a failure on the part of rural communities themselves.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".