MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401810078 · doi:10.55016/ojs/sppp.v16i1.77066

The Canadian Northern Corridor Roundtable Program: Results and Lessons Learned

2023· article· en· W4401810078 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Katharina Koch, Emily Galley, Evgeniia Sidorova, G. Kent Fellows, Robert L. Mansell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe School of Public Policy Publications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersWestern Economic Diversification CanadaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key Messsages: Canada needs a long-term strategic and integrated infrastructure vision for mid- and northern Canada that focuses on long-term policy priorities of communities. Infrastructure policy development for mid- and northern Canada must focus on collaborative approaches that foster cooperation and coordination rather than competition between community rights- and stakeholders. Streamlining of regulatory frameworks is required to improve efficiency, integration and coordination in the planning and approval of hard and soft infrastructure development. Decision-makers are encouraged to adopt a holistic infrastructure approach which includes not only physical infrastructure assets but also digital and soft infrastructure supporting social goals and outcomes, such as education and healthcare. A focus on local community capacity-building should be incorporated into any type of northern infrastructure development strategy to help support communities to address their own challenges and to foster cooperation between both public and private rights- and stakeholders. While federal support is important, any national infrastructure vision for mid- and northern Canada must incorporate the priorities of local Indigenous and municipal rights- and stakeholders. This approach avoids a top-down infrastructure approach and recognizes the role these communities have in in addressing the challenges related to climate change and supply chain constraints that we are facing today. A majority of communities in mid- and northern Canada consist of Indigenous populations, including First Nations, Métis and Inuit. A connective infrastructure approach can be a tool of reconciliation but only if it supports Indigenous self-governance, participation, inclusion and facilitates Indigenous-owned initiatives. While infrastructure needs vary across mid- and northern Canada, the digital divide across Canada is a common challenge. To sustain prosperity and mitigating challenges, communities need reliable and affordable high-speed internet access. Recent disruptions in global and Canadian supply chains underlines the need for strategic and targeted infrastructure optionality, ensuring reliable transportation and access to goods and services. Infrastructure development, focused on transportation and access to services such as healthcare, is essential to safeguard the high living standards we are enjoying today for future generations. For all Canadians to benefit, infrastructure development must adhere to the principles of equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe School of Public Policy PublicationsSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207