The Periphery in the Knowledge Economy: The Spatial Dynamics of the Canadian Economy and the Future of Non-Metropolitan Regions in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study focuses on the prospects of peripheral regions. Other names \ncould apply: non-metropolitan regions; remote regions; resource regions; etc. \nNo entirely satisfactory term exists. The regions that are the focus of this study \nall share certain attributes: low population densities, the absence of a large \nurban metropolis, distance from major markets. Taking distance as our \nbenchmark, approximately 28% of all Canadians lived beyond an hour’s drive \nof a major metropolis (with populations of over 500,000 in 1996). Although \nthe study examines trends for Canada as a whole, the focus is on Quebec and \nAtlantic Canada. Eleven regions were selected for in-depth analysis. \nThe study is the result of a broad-based research effort, involving experts \nin Quebec, Atlantic Canada, and Nordic nations. Seventeen background \nstudies were produced: \n— A review of recent literature on regional economic development, with a \nfocus on the knowledge-based economy and Nordic nations \n— An in-depth statistical analysis of geographical trends in population and \nemployment for Canada from 1971 to 1996. \n— Five country studies, looking at similar trends and regional policy, for \nFinland, Sweden, Norway and Scotland. These nations were chosen because their geography and development levels most resembled that of \nEastern Canada. \n— Specific studies for eleven regions of Quebec and Atlantic Canada. These \nstudies entailed statistical analysis and fieldwork, the latter based in large \npart on consultations with local experts, entrepreneurs, and practitioners. \nAbout 200 persons participated in focus groups. A two-day workshop was held in Montreal in October 2001 with researchers and practitioners. Findings were brought together, discussed, and \ndigested. The study seeks to summarize this mass of information and accumulated experience. However, the opinions expressed remain the sole responsibility of the authors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it