Urban growth management : the development of a program for the Edmonton area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban growth management is a topic of relatively new but increasing interest. Throughout North America, numerous communities are attempting to modify or manage their growth patterns. This thesis has attempted to draw together the reasons for this new concern for growth management, the techniques used to accomplish it and the considerations inherent in the actual development of a management program. In order that a real world perspective be achieved, the Edmonton area of Alberta was considered. Through data obtained from the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission as well as from a number of other governmental agencies and through the author's employment with the Planning Commission, an insight into the current growth patterns and problems of the area was attained. Following the introduction, a discussion of the new concern for growth management is presented in Chapter II. Three general areas of concern are described: social, environmental and economic. Chapter III enumerates and briefly reviews various growth management techniques as they are applied in North America. As the legality of any management technique is crucial to its success, Chapter IV discusses the legal basis for the various growth management techniques in the Alberta setting. A detailed explanation of the use of the Subdivision and Transfer Regulations of Alberta is used to exemplify the legal adequacy of some growth management techniques. With this background data, the development of a growth management program for the Edmonton area was initiated. Chapter V summarizes the current population and economic growth of the area as well as the views of the three levels of government and those of the general populace concerning growth. Finally, Chapter VI brings together the work from the preceeding chapters to develop a growth management program for the decentralization and reallocation of the population and economic growth of the area.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".