MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Building the Future: Rural Infrastructure and Regional Economic Development

2019· article· en· W3012406395 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ashleigh Weeden

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipWork (physics)Economic growthBusinessPublic infrastructureVitalityCapacity buildingRural areaAgricultureEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceEconomicsFinanceGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communities of all sizes must balance fiscal realities, changing economies, aging infrastructure, changing demographics, and a challenging climate as they work to manage their core infrastructure assets and accommodate and/or address new infrastructure and service demands. Given these challenges, are rural Ontario communities capable of responding to infrastructure pressures and opportunities? How does that capacity – or lack thereof – affect a community’s current and future long-term economic development? Funded by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs through the University of Guelph-OMAFRA Research Partnership, this research initiative will examine the capacity of different communities in rural Ontario to respond to infrastructure pressures and how these response impact their short and long-term economic well-being. Running from 2018-2021, the research team will use surveys, workshops, content analysis, and case studies, to develop recommendations for addressing these issues through both immediate and long-term policy alternatives. This research initiative will directly support rural Ontario’s economic vitality by providing three key benefits: enhanced understanding of the diversity and varying levels of rural community capacities, improved and more nuanced public policy, and enhanced rural infrastructure development programming.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicCommunity Development and Social ImpactFrench-language works237,207