MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415586886 · doi:10.21083/crrf.v34i1.7790

The Impact of Automation on Local Businesses: Economic Futures in Rural Canada

2025· article· W4415586886 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Stacey Haugen, Lars Hällström, Payton Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of AlbertaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsUnemploymentGovernment (linguistics)Closing (real estate)Rural economicsRural areaFutures contractRecessionEconomic impact analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated technologies, increased digitalization, and international events, such as COVID-19, are putting pressure on national and local economies to adapt or face rising unemployment and economic downturn. Rural communities are particularly impacted by these pressures as their economies are often built around a common industry, and the lack of access to reliable broadband creates significant barriers. This project asks: what are the implications of automation for labour in rural Canada? How prepared are rural businesses for change? What policy options are available to address the challenges resulting from the adoption of automated technologies? We conducted a localized assessment of how businesses in a rural community in Western Canada view the scale, nature and impacts of automation. Interviews with 60 businesses found that most business owners and managers are unprepared for technologically-driven disruptions. They are unlikely to adapt, adopt, or innovate in response to a changing business and economic environment. Recognizing that this compounds the employment and labour challenges already present in rural places, we present some policy options (such as re-skilling workers and closing economic gaps between urban and rural areas) that various levels of government and businesses could adopt moving 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207