Partnerships in place: Facilitating rural local government entrepreneurialism in Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rural local governments across Canada, including those in Newfoundland and Labrador, struggle with many of their day‐to‐day operational activities, including providing appropriate drinking water, wastewater, and garbage collection services, among other essential services, and rarely have capacity to facilitate local economic development activities. In recent times, entrepreneurialism has been noted as having potential for rural local governments, yet little research has been completed to determine its presence and relevance for municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. In response, we examined eight case study local governments in Newfoundland and Labrador to determine if, and how, entrepreneurialism was present in municipal efforts to increase economic prosperity in their communities. Findings suggest that while rural local governments continue to face challenges due to declining support for rural development from provincial and federal governments and increased downloading of responsibilities, some communities have established ways to remain resilient through partnerships and building on place‐based assets. This exploratory study provides a basis for further in‐depth research to determine the extent and approaches to entrepreneurialism in local government in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".