Results of a critical examination of New Regionalism in the Canadian context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This presentation will highlight findings of a four year empirical assessment of Canadian regional development policy and practice and in particular evidence of new regionalist ideas over the past two decades. Conducted in four provinces and five largely rural regions, the study utilized an analytical framework centered on five key themes: place-based development, governance, innovation and knowledge flows, integration, and rural-urban relationships. Our findings suggest that elements of new regionalism can be seen in recent Canadian regional development. We also identify, however, a significant gap between the expectations, theorization and in some cases rhetoric of new regionalism and policies and practices on the ground. Empirical evidence of new regionalism is uneven and partial. Integrated approaches were largely lacking, and we found limited collaboration across and within levels of government or evidence of policy co-construction. Identity remains largely emergent or even actively resisted. Attention to increasing rural-urban relationships has focused on city regions, raising questions about the future of rural communities seen as lying beyond, or in service of, urban growth centres. Implications for policy, research and the claims associated with new regionalism posed by this research will be explored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".