Prospects for Endogenous Development: Understanding Community Capacity in the Keremeos Area of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores how local community economic development actors in rural settings view prospects for bottom-up (i.e., endogenous) development through a case study of the Keremeos area in British Columbia. The study involved a basic descriptive analysis of the case study site drawing upon Statistics Canada data, historical records and local policy documents along with 11 semi-structured interviews of local development actors representing the varied geographic, jurisdictional and organizational interests comprising the Keremeos area development landscape. The findings indicate that not only do predominant institutional arrangements presuppose and eventuate rural inferiority and decline, they also tend to impose externalities for rural communities to contend with while failing to provide similar measures of in-kind support to mitigate such impacts. This stokes an erroneous sentiment that local government is responsible for precipitating endogenous development, limiting the extent to which community members work to actively operationalize it as a result. Such conditions ultimately lead rural communities to have no choice but to challenge predominant institutional arrangements in order to forge their own paths for realizing endogenous development. Indigenous communities offer hope for rural areas through increased guardianship programs and industry partnerships which help to challenge and rearticulate these arrangements to the advantage of their communities and interests. It is advisable that senior government work to provide rural communities with capacity to facilitate their own economic viability – reflecting local values, knowledge, identity and autonomy – thus working to counter the externalities and parameters which they and prevailing market forces have conceived for rural communities to persist within.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".