MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Managing Urban Sprawl in Ontario: Good Policy or Good Politics?

2010· article· en· W2136222192 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

VenuePolitics &amp Policy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban sprawlPoliticsPolitical sciencePlan (archaeology)Urban policyGeographyPublic administrationHumanitiesLand useWelfare economicsUrban planningEconomicsArchaeologyLawArtEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ontario Places to Grow Plan, finalized in 2006, marks the boldest attempt to address urban sprawl in Canada, and arguably North America. Among its many components, the Plan establishes a permanent greenbelt covering roughly 1.8 million acres (728,000 hectares) of environmentally sensitive land. This article seeks to explain the political calculations and conditions that led to the Ontario policy. I argue that the Plan was partially devised to garner support in key suburban ridings (electoral districts) across the Greater Toronto Area in the 2003 provincial election. The campaign marked the final ingredient in the opening of a critical “policy window” through which dramatic changes in land‐use policy could be realized. The Ontario case underlines the utility of adaptive models of policy making to the study of environmental policy, but suggests that these models perhaps underemphasize the desire of politicians and political parties to pursue policies in their electoral interest. El Plan de Lugares de Ontario para Crecer, publicado en 2006, señala el intento más audaz para hacer frente a la expansión urbana en Canadá, y quizás en toda Norteamérica. Entre sus muchos componentes, el plan establece un cinturón verde permanente que cubre aproximadamente 1.8 millones de acres (728,000 hectáreas) de tierra ambientalmente sensible. Este artículo busca explicar los cálculos políticos y las causas que llevaron a dicha política. Argumento que el plan fue parcialmente ideado para reunir apoyo de distritos suburbanos electorales clave a través del Área Metropolitana de Toronto en la elección provincial de 2003. La campaña marcó el ingrediente final en la apertura de una “ventana política” crítica que permitió cambios dramáticos en la política de uso de suelo. El caso de Ontario subraya la utilidad de modelos adaptativos de hechura de políticas en el estudio de la política ambiental, pero sugiere que quizás estos modelos subestiman el deseo de los políticos y los partidos de buscar políticas que los beneficien electoralmente.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.315 · 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