Exploring the land development process and its impact on urban form in Hamilton, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The form of many Canadian cities has dramatically evolved over the past six decades due to urban sprawl. Several patterns can characterize this evolution including unlimited horizontal expansion of the city, leapfrog, and low‐density residential development at the outskirts, and widespread strip commercial and power centre retail development. Hamilton, Ontario is an example of a Canadian city that has experienced suburbanization and sprawled development for several decades. However, the nature of this sprawled development is unclear and its impact on urban form is not entirely understood. In this article, several hypotheses pertaining to sprawled land development and urban form are postulated and tested. The tests rely on point source data of the developed land parcels in Hamilton during the period 1950–2003. A number of spatial statistics techniques, including kernel estimation and complete spatial randomness (CSR) K‐function tests, are employed to examine the emerging nature of urban form. We hypothesize that while the city has been sprawling, the ongoing land development process is leading urban form into multinucleation. To support this assumption, we further hypothesize the existence of an interdependent spatial relationship between residential and commercial land uses at the emerging nuclei. Accordingly, we examine the strength of co‐clustering among these land use activities over time. The findings indicate that while the city has been sprawling, several consequent urban nuclei with mixed land use activities have been emerging and become more visible in recent years. This is an indication that the city's form is progressively becoming multinuclear. Furthermore, the estimates for the 1990s indicate interdependence between the locational patterns of residential and commercial land development. Co‐clustering between these two types of land uses is bi‐directional and occurs at a time lag of three to seven years. These findings affirm the existence of interdependence between land use activities at the observed nuclei, which support the emergence of a multinucleation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".