MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994622133 · doi:10.7202/1015940ar

The Landscapes of Winnipeg’s Wildwood Park

2001· article· en· W1994622133 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michael D. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture and Cultural Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeighbourhood (mathematics)Landscape designSociologyWrightPremiseGeographyLandscape architectureAestheticsEnvironmental ethicsHistoryCivil engineeringEngineeringArtArt historyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is a review of the history of the differentiated landscapes of Winnipeg’s Wildwood Park—their origins and their transformations since the community’s establishment in the late 1940s by builder/developer Hubert Bird. Bird patterned his scheme after Stein and Wright’s Radburn garden-city fragment, but the uniquely evolved character of Wildwood Park owes as much to regional landscape, geomorphology, and local post-war culture as it owes to its famed antecedent. As a unique and idiosyncratic community design, Wildwood Park merits attention and further study by planning historians and those interested in alternative neighbourhood forms as social constructions or cultural landscapes. In addition, it suggests many things to designers of contemporary communities, many of whom are currently looking to traditional pre-World-War-II grid-pattern neighbourhood structure and aesthetics as inspiration for (presumably) more socially cohesive neighbourhoods. Whether such designers are inclined toward the garden-city precept for separation of automobiles and pedestrians, or toward this contradictory "new urbanist" premise that cars and people should cohabitate within community open space, Wild-wood Park has much to offer as precedent. Both its pedestrians-only park and its highly interactive lanes that do mix people and cars—and particularly these two complementary landscapes considered as a "matched set"—offer many interesting design lessons in matters of two-dimensional platting, three-dimensional neighbourhood structure and four-dimensional considerations for structural and landscape transformations that occur over the span of several decades.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicArchitecture and Cultural InfluencesFrench-language works237,207