MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268603867

Development Permit Areas: Guidelines and Permit Conditions

2009· article· en· W2268603867 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah Curran

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubdivisionBusinessEnvironmental planningFlexibility (engineering)Hazardous wasteDevelopment planGovernment (linguistics)DirectiveLocal governmentSet-asideDiscretionEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringCivil engineeringPublic administrationEnvironmental scienceLawComputer scienceEconomicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Development Permit Area (DPA) is a set of development regulations pertaining to a specific area as specified by the Official Community Plan. Any proposed building and subdivision within a DPA requires the issuance of a development permit. The authority for local governments to establish DPAs is set out in the Local Government Act, Sections 919.1 and 920.The purpose of a Development permit area (DPA) may be to:• protect development from hazardous conditions;• protect agricultural land;• protect the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity;• revitalize an area in which a commercial use is permitted;• establish objectives for the form and character of intensive residential development, and/or to establish objectives for the form and character of commercial, industrial or multi-family residential development.• establish objectives to promote energy conservation, water conservation, and reduce greenhouse gases. The flexibility of DPA guidelines allow Council to fairly exercise its discretion in granting or refusing a permit on a case by case basis, while providing objective principles to guide Council's conditions for approving or refusing a DP application.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.056

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory StudiesFrench-language works237,207