MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Waterfront Property Owners as Economic Development Contributors in Rural Ontario

2018· article· en· W3011340000 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Katherine Howes

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)General partnershipPopulationGeographyRural developmentEconomic growthRural areaBusinessPolitical scienceEngineeringSociologyAgricultureArchaeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within Ontario, it is estimated that as much as 10% of the population owns or has access to a cottage. This research, in partnership with the Federation of Ontario Cottagers’ Associations (FOCA), aims to change the conversation about waterfront property owners (WPO) from “tourists” to partners in rural economic development in Eastern Ontario. This study is using a multifaceted approach, which includes an online survey of WPO in Eastern Ontario to identify challenges and opportunities for working remotely or permanently relocating to, the cottage; key informant interviews with several individuals who have made the move to work remotely from their cottage or to permanently relocate and open a business in their rural communities. The last phase of the project aims to connect with the Eastern Ontario economic development community to share the findings of study and to determine how municipalities are engaging WPO in economic development strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207