Retaining Financial Capital for Rural Community Development: A Case Study of the Town of Olds, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial capital is an important component of rural community development and a key aspect of community resilience. Yet residents often transfer their wealth into investment vehicles such as GICs and bonds that are external to their community. This exodus of financial capital is often in contrast to a deep commitment to the local community in which these residents lived and worked for the majority of their lives. With a focus on the Town of Olds, Alberta, this project seeks to understand the possibilities for local financial capital retention for community development. We compare several approaches to capital retention that include the transition towns movement, community currency and community bonds; we explore perspectives from municipal, provincial, and federal levels of government; we seek insights from the representatives of local financial institutions; and we survey residents of the Town of Olds about their views on local investment. Results indicate a willingness to invest locally among residents, with support from town leaders, governments, and financial institutions. Yet several key barriers exist. These barriers include a limited understanding of financial vehicles for local investment (e.g., community bonds) and the availability of other attractive non-local options to secure financial capital (e.g., loans at attractive rates).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".