MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W330483058

Population Growth in Rural and Small Town Ontario: Metropolitan Decentralization or deconcentration?/La Croissance De la Population Dans Les Petites Villes et Les Regions Rurales De l'Ontario : La Decentralisation Ou la Deconcentration Metropolitaines?

2009· article· fr· W330483058 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Clare Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Regional Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecentralizationMetropolitan areaUrban agglomerationGeographyPopulationCensusEconomic geographyPolitical scienceDemographySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Between 1996 and 2001, Ontario experienced an increase in its rural and small town population. This paper determines whether growth was a result of metropolitan decentralization or deconcentration. Analysis of migration data reveals that movement from metropolitan regions to municipalities under strong or moderate urban influence (i.e. decentralization) accounted for almost one-half of all migrations. Comparable movement to rural settings under weak or no urban influence (i.e. deconcentration) represented 3% of all relocations. Migration from census agglomerations, and other rural settlements, also promoted growth of non-metropolitan municipalities. It is concluded that although metropolitan decentralization was the most important migration path, it is one of many which led migrants into rural Ontario during this 5-year period. Resume Entre 1996 et 2001, l'Ontario a enregistre une croissance demographique dans ses regions rurales et ses petites villes. Cet article s'efforce de determiner si cette croissance est le resultat d'une deconcentration ou d'une decentralisation urbaine. L'analyse des donnees de recensement des migrations montre que les residents empruntent divers chemins migratoires. Les regions metropolitaines de recensement (RMR) et les municipalites sous influence urbaine moderee ou forte (decentralisation) representent pres de la moitie des migrations. En revanche, le mouvement des regions metropolitaines vers les regions rurales sous influence urbaine faible ou nulle (deconcentration) ne represente qu'environ 3 % du total des deplacements. L'analyse constate que les migrations d'habitants des plus petites agglomerations urbaines (agglomerations de recensement ou AR) contribuent egalement a la croissance demographique des regions rurales et des petites villes de l'Ontario. La migration a partir des AR vers les regions rurales et les petites villes sous influence urbaine moderee ou forte (decentralisation sous-metropolitaine) represente un cinquieme de tous les mouvements de population. A l'inverse, la deconcentration sous-metropolitaine (migration vers des regions sous influence urbaine faible ou nulle) ne represente que 2 % de tous les deplacements. L'analyse montre egalement que plus d'un quart de tous les mouvements migratoires ont lieu entre les agglomerations rurales. La majorite des demenagements sont des 'migrations vers l'espace rural' definies ici comme des mouvements entre des municipalites des regions rurales et des petites villes sous influence forte ou moderee. L'analyse conclut donc que la decentralisation metropolitaine est la principale source de migration responsable de la croissance des regions rurales et des petites villes de l'Ontario. Bien que la deconcentration metropolitaine existe, elle ne represente qu'une source migratoire relativement modeste qui profite aux municipalites offrant des amenites naturelles. Les resultats de l'analyse soulignent egalement l'importance des mouvements migratoires en provenance des plus petites agglomerations urbaines (agglomerations de recensement) et l'importance continue de la migration entre les agglomerations rurales. L'analyse des donnees de migration entre 2001 et 2006 permettra de determiner si ces tendances se confirment. Introduction Population decline characterized many of Canada's non-metropolitan municipalities during the latter half of the 20th century. Between 1971 and 2001, for example, the percentage of the population residing in rural areas and small towns declined by about one fifth, to only 20.3% (Mendelson and Bollman 1998; Statistics Canada 2001 a). In fact, during the last census period of the millennium (1996-2001), more than 50% of the country's smallest settlements lost residents (Statistics Canada 2001 a). Despite this general trend, non-metropolitan populations grew in Ontario, Manitoba, and Alberta. The purpose of this paper is to assess the contribution of various types of migration to the growth of rural and small town settlements in the province of Ontario. …

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Regional ScienceSame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207