MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038547861 · doi:10.1080/15239080701381355

Greenbelts as an Environmental Planning Tool: A Case Study of Southern Ontario, Canada

2007· article· en· W2038547861 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 Environmental Policy & Planning · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompromiseStrengths and weaknessesEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographyBoundary (topology)Environmental protectionPolitical scienceEnvironmental sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Greenbelts are networks of managed land adopted to meet a wide array of ecological and other goals. In 2005, a greenbelt was created in southern Ontario (Canada). This paper examines the potential for success of the 2005 initiative by evaluating the greenbelt in the light of several weaknesses identified in Ontario's previous greenbelt initiative. Based on our analysis, the 2005 greenbelt is an improvement over the previous effort in the way leapfrog development and future boundary changes are addressed. However, some of the weaknesses previously identified in the literature and a prior Ontario effort are presented and may compromise the effectiveness of the 2005 initiative.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.242 · 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