Toward a livable region? : an evaluation of business parks in Greater Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postmodern metropolitan regions have become marked by the process of office suburbanization. Greater Vancouver has not been immune to this. Despite regional planning policy, suburban offices have located on industrial land in isolated, autodependent business parks. The amount of office space in business parks far surpasses office space in the designated regional town centres. This thesis examines whether business park development is consistent with the goals set out in Greater Vancouver's Livable Region Strategic Plan; whether business parks are in tune with the principles of sustainability; and whether business parks are fulfilling municipal tax and employment objectives. To answer these questions, an evaluative framework of eight criteria is established. Analysis of quantitative and qualitative data demonstrates that business parks are not consistent with these goals and objectives. The land consumed, the travel patterns produced, and the taxes generated by business parks reveal a land use pattern that is far less efficient than urban centre locations. Concentrating office development in existing urban and suburban centres complements the retail, residential, community services, and transit infrastructure in centres and enables employees to work in places where they can live, shop, and play nearby.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".