MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2694391927 · doi:10.1080/13574809.2017.1337494

Is New Urbanism changing the suburban development pattern? A case study of the Toronto region

2017· article· en· W2694391927 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban Design · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanismNew UrbanismUrban designTransport engineeringGeographyImplementationEconomic geographyCivil engineeringTransit-oriented developmentLandscape urbanismUrban planningEnvironmental planningRegional scienceArchitectural engineeringArchitectureEngineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper includes a detailed comparison of the design features and urban form characteristics of 10 urban fringe neighbourhoods in the Toronto (Canada) region, and examines the extent to which a new suburban development pattern has been created under the influence of the New Urbanism movement. Results suggest that although considerable variations exist in implementations of New Urbanist design, a new suburban development pattern has been created. This pattern is characterized by increased net density, improved internal street-connectivity, and walkable distances to parks, schools and transit stops. Through a close examination of the varied design outcomes, this paper highlights the trade-offs inherent in implementing New Urbanist design.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.228 · 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