Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How did Calgary get its river parks? They certainly were not there to begin with. They weren’t there as the city grew. They had to be built. As this paper shows, they were constructed relatively recently, and only after an astonishingly close brush with modernism, in which the land might have been dedicated to other dramatically different uses. Calgary’s river parks appeared following a wrenching act of negation that bitterly divided the city in the mid-1960s. The organized women’s movement of Calgary allied with urban elites, and the new planning bureaucracy and philanthropists combined to push the project forward—but not without the active co-operation of the river itself The citizenry became so attached to their newly designed river that they were prepared to entertain a higher risk of flooding to keep it green. The result could have been quite different, and almost was. This paper maps a profound but nonetheless contingent shift in popular and political attitudes towards the river in urban life in Calgary that mirrored broader cultural reconsiderations of the environment and nature.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
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 it