MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Still Planning to Be Different? Toronto at the Turn of the Millennium

2000· article· en· W2329050547 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stefan Kipfer, Roger Keil

Bibliographic record

VenuedisP - The Planning Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHenan Institute of Science and Technology
KeywordsNewspaperPlan (archaeology)Urban planningLand-use planningZoningEnvironmental planningSquare (algebra)Competition (biology)PopulationPolitical sciencePublic administrationGeographyRegional scienceLand useEconomic growthSociologyArchaeologyCivil engineeringEngineeringEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toronto is the largest and most populous city in Canada. The metropolis on Lake Ontario has a land area of 622 square kilometers and a population of 2.4 million. After the city was consolidated from previously seven municipalities in 1998, City Council has endorsed the preparation of a new Official Plan. In this paper, we trace the traditions and current challenges of planning reform in Toronto in light of the current process of official plan review which, in the words of the City's planners “is required to deal with global economic competition, new municipal responsibilities, and the changing social fabric.” We will begin with a few conceptual and theoretical considerations on planning in Toronto at the millennium, provide a short historical overview of postwar planning in this city, and end with a section on current planning issues, based on analysis of planning documents, newspaper and other public accounts, as well as a small number of conversations with leading local planners and politicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuedisP - The Planning ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207