Systems approach in the analysis of the official town plan, Zoning by-law, and subdivision regulations : a case study of the town planning act of Nova Scotia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis analyses the provisions of the Town Planning Act of Nova Scotia with respect to the procedures for the enactment, amendment, and repeal of the official town plan, the enactment, amendment, variation, and repeal of the zoning by-law, the enactment of subdivision regulations, and the approval of subdivision plans, through the following hypothesis: The Town Planning Act of Nova Scotia does not require amendment if the statutory provisions for the enactment, amendment, and repeal of the official town plan, the enactment, amendment, variation, and repeal of the zoning by-law, the enactment of subdivision regulations, and the approval of subdivision plans pursuant to the subdivision regulations are to be satisfactory in terms of: 1. Systems Mainteance; 2. Community Planning; 3. Openness; 4. Efficiency; 5. Effectiveness; 6. Justice. The hypothesis is tested and proven invalid. However the test itself and the methodology for the development of the conceptual framework and the consequent hypothesis are found to be sufficiently defective to necessitate an alternative conclusion about the validity of the hypothesis, namely, "not proven". Notwithstanding the problem in establishing and testing the hypothesis, it is felt that the thesis is worthwhile inasmuch it has established a valid theoretical framework for the treatment of land use planning related issues and points to further areas of research. The conceptual framework is based upon systems theory. A conceptual framework is a means of organizing concepts and facts about a given class of phenomena in a consistent and logically satisfying manner while lacking the precision of a theory. The main sources of supporting data for the conceptual framework and the test of the hypothesis are the Town Planning Act, population and economic data about the Province of Nova Scotia, and responses to a questionnaire which was mailed to planning authorities in the Province.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".