MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122944171 · doi:10.7202/038464ar

Project Apollo: The <i>Genstar Report</i> and the City of Calgary, 1973–1975

2009· article· en· W2122944171 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Max Foran

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonopolyApolloPoliticsPosition (finance)Public administrationPower (physics)Political scienceAction (physics)LawEconomic historyBusinessHistoryEconomicsFinanceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on a secret study commissioned by the City of Calgary chief commissioner in 1973 to ascertain the extent and threat of monopoly control by a leading land developer in the city. Kept from City Council for months after its completion, the report, code named Apollo, found that the Genstar group of companies was in a strong monopoly position. When released, the report led to a public debate, political infighting at City Hall, threats of legal action by Genstar, and a federal investigation. Though its findings on monopoly implications were never substantiated, the report did indicate the growing concentration of corporate power in the land development and construction industries in Calgary, and likely in other Canadian cities as well.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicUrbanization and City PlanningFrench-language works237,207