MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206958640 · doi:10.4000/regulation.20637

Hinterland decline, resource rents, and resource wages: A critique of the theory of an Intrusive Rentier Syndrome

2021· article· en· W4206958640 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Leadbeater

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de la régulation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsEconomic rentResource (disambiguation)Resource curseDiversification (marketing strategy)WageLabour economicsPoliticsEconomic systemMarket economyBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The theory of an Intrusive Rentier Syndrome is a recent attempt in Canada to explain long-term decline in hinterland communities and regions dependent on mining and other primary industries. The theory claims that, in the resource region’s small or medium-sized communities with a large mine and other capital-intensive industry, unionized workers are able to gain a portion of resource rents and set a high-wage norm in the communities; the high-wage norm is a major obstacle to entrepreneurship and diversification. This critical examination of the theory focuses on the theory’s flawed views of the relationship among resource wages, resource rents, and community wages, the role of local demand, and the issue of low education. The analysis is centred on hardrock mining communities with special attention to Northern Ontario, the largest metal mining region in Canada. From the critique of the Intrusive Rentier Syndrome theory is proposed an alternative political economy of labour market “adjustment” in hinterland regions, one based on Marx’s labour reserve concept.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.029
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de la régulationSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207