MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345526761 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2015.1124241

The Non-gated Gated Community of Stapleton

2016· article· en· W2345526761 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huston Gibson, Jessica Canfield

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfillDiversity (politics)Plan (archaeology)SociologyArchitectural engineeringPublic relationsPolitical scienceCivil engineeringEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stapleton is an urban infill development with a master plan that calls for many ambitious and benevolent social, environmental, and economic goals: aiming to become a well-integrated, inclusive community; promoting internal diversity by providing an array of land-use and housing options; and integrating externally through fostered connections to surrounding, already established neighborhoods. However, through observations and walking interviews with residents, we have reason to question the fulfillment of these goals. Instead we found several physical and non-physical barriers that clearly divide the community, both internally and externally. This study is intended to advance discourse on community borders, particularly for infill developments integrating into already existing urban fabrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207