MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979557766 · doi:10.1080/13574800500297702

Restoration of the Don Valley Brick Works: Whose Restoration? Whose Space?

2005· article· en· W1979557766 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban Design · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricIdeologyPaceEnvironmental ethicsBrickHegemonySociologyEnvironmental planningCivil engineeringPolitical scienceEngineeringPoliticsGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social identities, ideologies and values may be expressed through urban landscapes as spatial practices that appear chaste, moral and beneficial to society as a whole. As nature conservation is increasingly absorbed into the rhetoric and practice of sustainable urban design, it is often assumed to be honourable endeavour that slows the pace of environmental destruction and bestows the critical environmental functions upon which urban fabric depends. However, conservation practices often conceal, produce and reinforce hegemonic social relations. This paper considers the recent transformation of Toronto's Don Valley Brick Works from an industrial complex to a ‘naturalized’ urban park, illustrating how socially exclusionary practices may be expressed through ecological restoration and environmental aesthetics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.144 · 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