Place-Based Endowmentsin the Periphery: Changing theDynamics ofRural Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral communities are sites of wealth, fueling the Canadian economy through natural resource industries since confederation. Although the periphery is a source of wealth, over the past thirty years this wealth has largely been redirected out of rural regions to larger urban centres. These domestic issues are exacerbated by processes of globalization, which facilitate the hyper-mobility of finance. Finance is no longer tied to place. Finance has become ‘disembedded’ with increasing interconnections and advancements in Internet technologies, leading to emerging patterns of uneven development across the Canadian periphery. A counterbalance to these trends is the emergence of philanthropic organizations in Canada that have been exploring and implementing place-based collective endowments as a response to re-embedding finance in local areas. Under the federal Charities Act, philanthropic organizations (such as community foundations and trusts) can collect money to invest in place-based collective endowments. The funds collected are under the guidance of local actors, who also prioritize how to spend interest generated from the endowment. These philanthropic organizations organize around place and people’s connection to place. These organizations are starting to understand their potential impact on the local development. Yet little research has been conducted on philanthropy in rural Canada. This poster provides an overview to a new three year SSHRC funded research initiative examining the role of place-based endowments in rural Canada. The poster shares insights gleaned from the research to date, discusses future directions for the initiative, and identifies ways for people to become engaged with the research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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 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".