MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086340277 · doi:10.2747/0272-3638.33.7.1055

Sustainability-As-Density and the Return of the Social: The Case of Vancouver, British Columbia

2012· article· en· W2086340277 on OpenAlexaffabout
Noah Quastel, Markus Moos, Nicholas Lynch

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Geography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentrificationSustainabilityPromotion (chess)PoliticsSocial sustainabilityUrban densityUrban planningPublic housingEconomic geographySocioeconomic statusEconomic growthSociologyGeographyPolitical scienceEconomicsEcologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban planning policy in North America is increasingly dominated by the ideal of "sustainability-as-density"—the promotion of walkable neighborhoods containing high-density housing in proximity to transit and daily amenities. Although this planning approach is increasingly scrutinized due to its links to gentrification and rising regional housing costs, there are few examples of analysis of neighborhood-level effects, especially social impacts. This study extends a political ecology perspective to combine quantitative, cultural, and critical policy analysis methods to analyze neighborhood densification initiatives in the city of Vancouver, Canada. Densification was found to be entangled with socioeconomic neighborhood composition as well as cultural and lifestyle characteristics of gentrification. Increased public concern over tensions between the promotion of densification and housing affordability is also a factor, despite some limited efforts by the City of Vancouver to address social concerns. This suggests a need to rethink the roles of both densification and "the social" more generally in urban sustainability policy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations144
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban GeographySame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207