OECD Territorial Reviews: Canada 2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OECD's Territorial Review of Canada. It finds that Canada is composed of three macroregions: a southern ribbon with all the important metropolitan areas, a zone of rural and non-metropolitan adjacent regions and a sub-continent of remote northern territories. Disparities between these macroregions persist and may even be growing. Opportunities for growth are lost because of these imbalances and also because specific regional advantages are not fully tapped. In many regions, weak local governance is hindering the emergence of local grass-roots projects, diffusion of R&D results to SMEs is slow and dialogue between higher education institutions and firms is poor. This report underlines the need for federal agencies and sectoral departments to continuously assess the consistency of their policies with regard to the three macroregions in order to enhance territorial cohesion and better tailor programmes to local conditions. More federal involvement in metropolitan issues notably through negotiated planning could help to institutionalise and strengthen urban policies. This report also emphasises the significant overhauling of rural policies that took place recently. It underlines that in certain areas such as amenities a strategic approach is still to be defined. Resolving governance issues is a priority in the north.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.026 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".