Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postwar programs of urban renewal in Canadian cities have long been considered failures in the sense that their objectives were faulty and their impacts generally harmful. However, so complete is the consensus around this interpretation that historians have not made as much effort as they might have to understand the goals and mechanisms of renewal programs. This close study of postwar urban renewal in Toronto identifies several significant aspects, largely unrecognized, of one city's renewal program. It clarifies that urban renewal and public housing, though often conflated, were actually two discrete things. It finds that renewal advocates carefully inventoried the communities they sought to renew – their plans were by no means based on James C. Scott's now paradigmatic “synoptic” view – but it confirms that many did indeed have insufficient understanding of those communities. It also finds that much less urban renewal was done in Toronto than is generally assumed, suggesting that urban renewal's failure resulted more from inaction than from action. In conclusion, it notes that physical renewal of the city was ultimately accomplished not by urban renewal programs but, rather, by the actions of private property owners and entrepreneurs, raising questions about public endeavour as a means of urban improvement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".