Bibliographic record
Abstract
The public space of the contemporary downtown is a complex and controversial phenomenon. In the past the territory of the public and that of the private were sharply defined by the property lines dividing the landscape into the city blocks and the network of the streets. Such clear-cut divisions between the public and private spaces of downtown are not valid anymore; neither are the political, financial and legal issues related to their ownership, development, maintenance and use. By typology and physical spread the public space of downtown has developed far beyond the street, into the office plazas and atria, and indoor spaces of the shopping malls and mixed-use downtown centers. These new types are dubious creations as they are developed by the private funds but are intended to be used by the public. Therefore the public space of the contemporary downtown is a controversial conception whereas its use is conditioned by the interests of the private developers and proprietors, which tend to prefer the wealthy and privileged consumers. The increasing diversity and complexity, as well as the contested state of the contemporary downtown public space demands renewing our conceptions of it. This thesis is an attempt in that direction. The present work is a combination of two separate pieces of research on the theme of downtown public space. The first research, as covered in chapters one and two, is a broad investigation. It is a study of the main types of public space that constitute the public realm of the North American downtown, and a study of the downtown realm in its entirety. Therefore, it is a correlated study of the parts and the whole. The objective of this broad investigation is to understand the complexity of downtown public space. This knowledge will inform planning and urban design to make decisions and conduct the course of change and development in the downtown environment in a more insightful manner. The second research, as covered in chapter three, is a focused analysis of the parameters that need to be considered in the evaluation and/or design of urban open space as a particular type of public space. The proposed criteria is used for the evaluation of two cases of public space in downtown Vancouver.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".