A Framework for Site Assessment Guides for Urban Impacted Soils: A Vancouver Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban agricultural activities, such as community gardening and urban farming, are becoming popular in many North American cities, including Vancouver, British Columbia (BC). Currently, demand for urban agricultural land in Vancouver is mainly met by reclaiming brownfields (vacant and often neglected tracts of land) and land owned or managed by schools, religious institutions, hospitals, and private residents, into gardens and urban farms. Before urban sites can be reclaimed, they need to be assessed for suitability for food production; however, many cities, including Vancouver, do not have locally adapted site assessment guides (SAGs). This paper describes the development of a framework for a SAG for Vancouver soils. The framework consists of the following five phases: (1) initial selection of properties and assessment approaches; (2) stakeholder feedback and subsequent revision of the properties identified in Phase 1; (3) additional feedback, revision, and finalization of the SAG; (4) distribution of the guides; and (5) ongoing updates and support. As part of framework development, we identified relevant site characteristics (e.g., soil properties, aspect, slope, amount of sunshine) for Vancouver and developed a Vancouver soil map. Distribution and promotion of the SAG through local organizations and societies started in 2010, and ongoing efforts regarding these initiatives are underway. The SAG framework used in Vancouver may be useful to other cities that wish to empower their citizens to create spaces for urban agriculture safely and successfully.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".