Bibliographic record
Abstract
Definitions of sustainable economic development generally emphasize that improving the well-being of people today should not be at the expense of future generations (see, for instance, the Brundtland [1987] Commission on Environment and Development).These definitions are, correctly, concerned about the limited resources available and the need to use them wisely over time.The wisdom of this concern is readily apparent in northern and rural Aboriginal communities which rely on hunting, fishing, trapping, and forestry for at least part of their livelihoods.Over production or wasteful use of these resources will eventually reveal themselves in declining yields, denying today's children and their children of access to these resources.In urban areas, it is less easy to apply this resource-based notion of sustainability to economic development.Different approaches are needed to address the different economic situation encountered there.An Aboriginal workers' co-operative in Winnipeg, Neechi Foods, has developed a series of community economic development (CED) principles that seem to offer a much more comprehensive view of "sustainability."A view that could readily encompass the resource focussed defini-
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".