The Potential of Urban Agriculture in Montréal: A Quantitative Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing food in urban areas could solve a multitude of social and environmental problems. These potential benefits have resulted in an increased demand for urban agriculture (UA), though quantitative data is lacking on the feasibility of conversion to large-scale practices. This study uses multiple land use scenarios to determine different spaces that could be allocated to vegetable production in Montréal, including residential gardens, industrial rooftops and vacant space. Considering a range of both soil-bound and hydroponic yields, the ability of these scenarios to render Montréal self-sufficient in terms of vegetable production is assessed. The results show that the island could easily satisfy its vegetable demand if hydroponics are implemented on industrial rooftops, though these operations are generally costly. Using only vacant space, however, also has the potential to meet the city’s demand and requires lower operating costs. A performance index was developed to evaluate the potential of each borough to meet its own vegetable demand while still maintaining an elevated population density. Most boroughs outside of the downtown core are able to satisfy their vegetable demand efficiently due to their land use composition, though results vary greatly depending on the farming methods used, indicating the importance of farm management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".