Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article uses a new institutionalist approach to investigate major land use conflicts and regional land use policy changes in the Toronto region that affected the property relations of land developers. Institutionalist approaches focus on the role of key actors, ideas, and strategies in influencing the trajectories of political institutions, and the confrontation of political and strategic maneuvering in the face of existing institutions and structures. Through comparison of the processes driving enactment of two major regional land use statutes—the Oak Ridge Moraine Conservation Act and the Greenbelt Act—this article pays close attention to the relationships between political actors and land developers, as well as the underlying political climate in shaping the development and outcomes of these statutes. This article shows that these two environmental land use statutes, which both had significant implications for the private property rights of land owners, differed in important ways in both their development and enactment. This article also shows that the enactment of provincial land use laws and their effects on private property rights are subject to greater political negotiation and contestation, and more unpredictable outcomes, than previously considered within new institutionalism. This article draws on case study research to illuminate the varied ways that land developers and key governmental decision makers exercise power, working within and against existing legal structures to forward particular agendas vis-à-vis urban land use.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".