MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100380171

COMMUNITIES AND LEADERS AT WORK IN THE NEW ECONOMY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AGENTS OF TRANSFORMATION IN

2016· article· en· W7100380171 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional resilience and development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipWork (physics)NarrativeIndustrial RevolutionTransformative learningEconomic stagnationPrecarityIndustrial relations
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Without change, stagnation is inevitable. Never has this truth been more obvious than during the current epoch of industrial decline in North America. This research provides two economic narratives that exemplify the struggles of industrial communities as they strive to regenerate. The research involves a comparative analysis of the transformation of two steel cities, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Hamilton, Ontario, from 1970 to 2008. For cities in which one major industry has formed the foundation of the local economy, job losses can result in massive dislocation and devastating consequences for individuals, families, and communities. Pittsburgh and Hamilton are among many cities striving to diversify and strengthen their economies as manufacturing diminishes and Western sunset industries rise in the East. Transformation has been much more extensive in Pittsburgh than in many cities because Pittsburgh was so largely dominated by the steel industry and faced a virtual collapse of that industry. Hamilton has also experienced a steep decline in steel and related manufacturing jobs. Based on 55 interviews with city leaders, including a pilot study in Welland, Ontario, this research examines eight critical factors that collectively influence development: transformational

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 teacher head, 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 topicRegional resilience and developmentFrench-language works237,207