MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966585801 · doi:10.7202/1016050ar

A Changing of the Guard: Regional Planning in Ottawa, 1945-1974

2005· article· en· W1966585801 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christopher Fullerton

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegional planningMetropolitan areaPublic administrationPlan (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Transportation planningUrban planningGuard (computer science)Political scienceCoast guardComprehensive planningControl (management)Economic growthEnvironmental planningGeographyManagementEnvironmental protectionEconomicsEngineeringTransport engineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the evolution of planning in Ottawa’s metropolitan region between 1945 and 1974—a period of significant change in the city’s planning history.1 As else-where, planners and policy-makers in Ottawa were coming under increasing pressure to make effective public participation a legitimate part of planning activities and to consider more seriously the potential quality-oflife impacts of their planning decisions, most notably those related to the provision of transportation infrastructure. Yet it was also in the late 1960s that the federal government was forced to concede its long-standing, yet unofficial, control of regional planning for the Ottawa area to the newly created Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC). Accordingly, creation of the RMOC’s first official plan was a contentious process that, in the end, enabled the continuation of postwar suburban development trends while also incorporating a "transit first" philosophy granting precedence to public transit over all forms of road construction and widening. The direction taken in its first official plan also enabled the RMOC to demonstrate that it, rather than the federal government, would from then on play the lead in regional planning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207