Manufacturing space for inclusive innovation? A study of makerspaces in southern Ontario
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 popular discourse on making and makerspaces is laden with optimistic narratives suggesting that makerspaces act as key institutions that support more inclusive and sustainable forms of local economic development. Despite their popularity, we know little about how makerspaces actually support entrepreneurship and innovation and even less about how they advance the goals of environmental sustainability and social inclusion, particularly in the Canadian context. In an effort to redress these gaps, this paper uses a unique database of makerspaces, complemented with findings from in-depth case studies, to examine the practices of makerspaces in southern Ontario (Canada). Our study finds that while makerspaces offer access to technologies and basic skills training, we find limited evidence that makerspaces generate the promised economic or social outcomes so often attributed to them. Moreover, we find very limited evidence that makerspaces actively seek to be socially inclusive in their membership and programming or encourage environmentally sustainable practices. In other words, the potential of makerspaces, in their current form, to contribute to more inclusive and sustainable forms of local economic and community development is not yet fully realized.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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