MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415586517 · doi:10.21083/crrf.v29i1.7706

Local InvestmentFunds &Rural Economic Revitalization

2025· article· W4415586517 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Gordon Borgstrom, Eden Yesh

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsInvestment (military)Rural areaRural economicsInvestment policyRural economyPlan (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research from across North America has demonstrated the critical role that locally controlled investment funds can play in successful rural economic revitalization. In Canada, business creation and expansion rates in rural areas typically lag the rates seen in urban – and urban adjacent – economies. At the same time, many existing rural business owners are looking to retire in the near future with no clear business succession plan or new buyers in place. This poses a very significant problem for rural communities since most new employment creation comes from small businesses. This proposed presentation would provide the following:• A general overview of the history and breadth of local rural investment funds in North America.• A general overview of business creation rates and other issues facing rural communities and entrepreneurs.• A detailed description of the history, formation and structure of the Creston & District Investment Co-op in the southeast region of BC.• A summary discussion of policy and regulation changes that would accelerate the creation of locally controlled rural investment funds in BC

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization FoundationSame topicRegional Development and PolicyFrench-language works237,207