MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1583665482

Your Home Our City: 100 Years of Public Control Over Private Space

2002· article· en· W1583665482 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michele Dale

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivate spaceSpace (punctuation)Control (management)BusinessComputer scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

About ten years ago, the City of Toronto Archives faced a huge challenge.Something had to be done with the thousands of building permit application plans that had been submitted to the City's Building Department over the years.These plans had been mounting since the Great Fire of 1904 that had devastated a large section of downtown Toronto.With fire comes renewal, and since 1904, Toronto had seen an enormous amount of building.The Great Fire had an additional effect.It prompted City officials to institute a comprehensive new by-law to regulate building construction.One of its principal goals was to prevent wildcat fires from spreading from one tinderbox to the next; hence the shift in preferred building materials from wood to brick, and the increased emphasis on planning and regulation to prevent urban congestion.Toronto grew rapidly in the early twentieth century, and the City annexed many formerly remote areas to feed the demand for more land.A construction boom accompanied the increase in municipal boundaries.Along with each request for a building permit, be it for a new factory, school, church, house, or even a

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.031
Scholarly communication0.0160.009
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivariaSame topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207