Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has often presented itself as a land of “wide open spaces ” in which cities were important, to be sure, but as supports for the “real action ” on farms, in the fishery, mines and so on. In the last decades, however, three things have changed and have altered this self-perception dramatically. First, there is growing recognition of the national and local importance of urban spaces as the site of innovation, economic development and social and political interaction. Second, our smaller cities, just as our major ones, are showing signs of serious strain and problems. Third, there is growing concern that existing policy, planning, and financial arrangements cannot address current challenges to urban success or the tasks devolved to the cities by senior governments. Indeed, while Canadian cities were for many years proudly held up as positive examples in the face of the myriad difficulties of American cities, this image is tarnished, as ours flounder and authorities in the United States invest in revitalizing their city-regions. The growing interest and concern about city-regions has provoked a wave of research papers and policy conferences in and about Canada’s largest cities. CPRN has chosen to contribute to this lively policy discourse by playing an integrative role – linking together
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".