Dominant national centers: a comparative analysis of the headquarters communities of New York and Toronto. The Industrial Geographer 4(1
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes and compares the headquarters communities of the two dominant, national corporate centers in North America. As the pre-eminent cities of their respective countries, New York and Toronto fulfill an important role within their national urban and economic systems. Both cities host businesses and institutions that determine and symbolize the direction of their respective national economies. The analysis of Toronto and New York examines recent trends in the growth and change of the headquarters hosted by the two cities. The results show that the cities are comparable in some ways, such as in their common dominance among the financial institutions of their countries. However, in other ways the headquarters community in each appears to be following distinct paths, as in the distinctive location tendencies of the most rapidly-growing firms in the two cities. The paper presents an analysis and comparison of the corporate community in each city, and provides some interpretation as to the meaning of the results for further development of theory in economic geography.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it