MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147332729 · doi:10.1080/14649350802661683

Theory and Practice in Planning the Suburbs: Challenges to Implementing New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and Sustainability Principles

2009· article· en· W2147332729 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

VenuePlanning Theory & Practice · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityNew UrbanismUrban planningFunction (biology)UrbanismSmart growthLand-use planningPoliticsEnvironmental planningBusinessSociologyLand usePolitical scienceEngineeringGeographyCivil engineeringArchitecture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although municipalities across Canada have adopted principles of new urbanism, smart growth, and sustainability in their planning and policy documents, new suburbs continue to reveal the influence of conventional development practices. This paper examines challenges to implementing new planning principles and reveals some of the ways that the development market selectively resists planning objectives in three Canadian urban areas. Interviews with planners, councillors, and representatives of the development industry indicate that, while land cost pressures contribute to increasing suburban densities, developers may challenge planning principles related to urban form and function. The study finds that weak political commitment and market pressures frustrate planners' desires to create accessible and open communities. Conceptual distinctions between planning approaches important to theory become blurred in practice.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.318 · 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