Promoting Engagement and Interaction in Rural Communities: A proposal for the revitalization of Wetaskiwin, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis focuses on Canadian Prairie communities and how architecture plays a role in promoting community engagement and interaction. The ideal components of a healthy rural town include its identity, sense of community and a strong relationship to the landscape, all of which are threatened by both internal and external influences. The large urban centers in close proximity to rural communities are a major influence over the direction of development. The growth of the urban fabric is understood only after studying the historical factors that have shaped its foundation, as well as its relationship to larger regional forces. \n \nThese forces have changed the urban morphology — shifting from an emphasis centered on community to one that is more focused upon economic development. This change does not suggest that these elements are completely separate from one another, but instead that the emphasis has shifted – bringing with it a whole new set of priorities. Increased development along major arterial highways is favoured over downtown growth; vehicular transportation dominates over the pedestrian; subdivisions are planned and built by developers to maximize economic gain rather than foster a sense of community; and community-based projects are no longer the norm. Unfortunately this has resulted in a loss of citizen participation and engagement. \n \nAn in-depth urban analysis of the town is central to the development of future design and development strategies. Case studies of comparable cities, towns or villages will help guide the development of design principles, strategies and processes necessary to promote a healthy rural community. By exploring the complexities of rural development, strategies and interventions that address these issues can be articulated and applied.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".