Accessing local capital for rural community development: the case of opportunity development co-operatives in Alberta, Canada
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 Community investment co-operatives, or opportunity development co-operatives (ODCs) in the Canadian province of Alberta, represent an intriguing mechanism for rural community development that are fully aligned with community wealth building principles. They are locally-driven entities designed to address a specific development issue faced by rural communities: the increasing difficulty rural entrepreneurs encounter accessing capital required to launch or grow their business. ODCs attempt to overcome this problem by soliciting local investments from community members via a co-operative structure. By then investing this pooled capital in a local business, the ODC is directly supporting local community and economic growth whilst retaining more wealth in the region and generating a return on investment for co-op members. However, the number of ODCs operating successfully in Alberta is dwarfed by the number that have failed to make an investment in a local business. This study highlights three successful examples of ODCs in rural Alberta before noting the central barriers ODCs typically encounter and outlines various factors that can move this concept forward.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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