MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014050827 · doi:10.1177/0096144212441710

Trouble in Smogville

2012· article· en· W2014050827 on OpenAlex
Owen Temby

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban History · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersYork University
KeywordsDowntownMetropolitan areaPoliticsTrainReal estateGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceLocal governmentCorporate governancePublic administrationBusinessEnvironmental planningGeographyFinanceLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By the mid-1950s the rapidly growing Toronto was arguably North America’s third-worst smog-stricken city. Its downtown waterfront area, referred to by the local media as “Smogville,” was home to a range of pollution sources, many of which were exempt from regulation by the city. At issue politically was whether the authority to regulate polluting sources would stay with Metropolitan Toronto or be handed to the Ontario government and whether the former would be able to regulate the exempt sources (in particular, trains, ships, and various types of manufacturers). By the end of the decade, Metropolitan Toronto still governed the pollution sources within its borders, but with substantially expanded authority to do so. This article provides an account of the politics of the city’s early attempt at air pollution governance, focusing on the role played by Toronto’s real estate interests in lobbying for air pollution relief.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.217 · 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