Deployment and development of community wealth building in Canadian mid-sized cities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the early 2000s, community wealth building (CWB) emerged as a renewed approach to local economic development. By design, CWB aims to democratize economies by harnessing the power of local assets and keeping wealth circulating in communities. Grounded in the principles of local ownership, and leveraging the purchasing power of anchor institutions, CWB seeks to combat wealth extraction to build a more sustainable and equitable economy. Where cities around the world, from Preston to Cleveland, are experimenting with this model, less is known about CWB in the Canadian context. As such, this research aims to better understand the barriers and facilitators to implementing CWB approaches in four Canadian mid-sized cities. This research is framed through an inclusive economy lens that advocates for the inclusion of local actors, community groups, and non-profits in building their economies. This approach resonates with the mid-sized city scholarship that supports the involvement of non-traditional actors in city-building. This research represents the first exploration of CWB in four Ontario mid-sized cities and offers insights into the strategies that local leaders are using to address challenges and build their economies. Findings from this research highlight the importance of community involvement, the value of local champions, and the importance of cross-sector collaborations. Despite the range of CWB initiatives happening across these Canadian mid-sized cities, this research finds that CWB projects remain on the margins of mainstream economic development policy and practice and advances the importance of more awareness of CWB.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it