Regions: The Dilemmas of Integration and Competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to discuss the research objectives and methodology to be utilized to determine the potential benefits of, and barriers to, the implementation of a spatial policy coordination framework in decentralised nations through an examination of Canada and its regional provinces. The research has five main objectives that will be discussed. The first is to examine the current theoretical and practical understanding of spatial territorial development, analysis and policy coordination and their relevance to decentralised nations, particularly through an analysis of European literature and experiences. The second objective is to analyse the current spatial structure, inequalities and connectivities that exist within Canada to identify issues that will benefit from better policy coordination between the federal government and its provincial regions. This is followed by a need to understand the extent of vertical spatial coordination and horizontal sectoral integration of policy planning in Canada and its provincial regions through policy content analysis. Once an understanding of the current spatial and policy framework is developed the institutional inter-governmental context, relationships, and the attitudes of relevant actors will be examined through interviews to determine their views on inter-governmental coordination. Finally a proposed spatial policy coordination framework will be developed based on the research undertaken and tested to determine its useful in mitigating problems associated with spatial policy coordination in Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".