MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100133860

Evidence from the Study of the Social Dynamics of Economic Performance

2016· article· en· W7100133860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsClass (philosophy)Social classInequalitySocial dynamicsDimension (graph theory)Social inequalityDynamics (music)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We contribute to a revised politics of class in urban development by draw-ing on recent theoretical work on class tensions and inequalities as a barrier to more egalitarian and sustainable economic development. We provide evi-dence from an empirical study of the social dynamics of economic perfor-mance in the city of Kingston, Ontario, to argue that class politics is a key dimension of social dynamics in this unusually segmented and spatially segre-gated Canadian city. Our findings suggest that poor economic performance can be understood through a class lens in two ways. First, “creative class” economic development strategies and growth machine politics perpetuate economic stagnancy because they fail to confront underlying class inequali-ties. Second, the absence of collaborative and socially inclusive leadership—a contributor to poor economic performance—emerges when local institu-tional leaders fail to find common ground over social problems. We con-clude with questions about how policymakers can alleviate class divides for better economic performance as well as contribute to the new debates in the literature on class and urban development. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 12, 2016uar.sagepub.comDownloaded from

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesFrench-language works237,207