Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite strong U.S. and Canadian economies, economic development remains an important local governmental function, partly to alleviate the persistent poverty that plagues some areas and partly to compete with the activities of neighboring local governments. Those cities, metropolitan areas, rural regions, and states that do not plan effectively lose the battle for economic survival. Local economic development has become a complex and challenging field, with increasing numbers of planners specifically trained for the task. Providing a useful guide for planners and students of planning, this revised and updated edition of Lyons and Hamlin's 1990 book offers a framework for formulating an economic development plan for a local community. Stating that economic development planning continues to focus too narrowly on job creation at the expense of long-term goals, the authors focus on the secondary and long-term effects of local development activities. Job creation, they claim, should be the end product of a well-considered, comprehensive, rational approach to economic development. The book looks at the objectives of economic planning, offering a broad conception of them, and considers the information needed to plan effectively. following a discussion of public-private partnership tools in the U.S., the book shows how to translate objectives and data into a program of action, then closes the loop of the planning cycle with a description of program evaluation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.013 |
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".