Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will not concentrate on identifying the physical factors of the Toronto Underground Pedestrian Mall System(TUPMS). Instead, it intends to take a detailed look at the background and development of TUPMS through an examination of its origin and growth. This approach is of prime importance in explaining the physical factors of TUPMS. In other words, the architectural values of TUPMS - such as use, size and design - can best be appreciated from an historical perspective. As a result of the research, the study focuses mainly on three areas. 1) Through a chronological research (phaseⅠ 1959-1974, phaseⅡ 1974-1990), the study unveils the mega structure of TUPMS, which has taken an arbitrary shape that is quite different from an aboveground grid pattern. 2) The study shows the formative factors of TUPMS. It makes an effort to assess the overall characteristics of TUPMS by finding out not only physical influences on TUPMS - i.e. subway access, Montreal Place Ville Marie, and the Toronto Dominion Centre - but also examining an ideological and institutional concerns - i.e. urban boom, separation between pedestrians and vehicles, and codes and bylaws -. 3) The study reveals some physical and sociocultural problems of TUPMS such as uncomfortable indoor air quality, isolation from an outdoor environment, a horizontal and narrow world, little natural light, few places to linger, and a relatively unaware general populace.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".