Planned built environments and city transformation: urban design in Montreal, 1956–2015
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on Canadian urbanism and, in particular, Canadian urban design, despite some notable exceptions, are relatively limited. This paper explains from an urban form perspective, the practice of urban design in Montreal from the mid-twentieth century onwards. The paper seeks to interpret the development of urban design practice by studying three representative urban projects built over the past six decades. These projects are used to illustrate the different design strategies adopted, to understand how urban design ideology/ideas have evolved over time and how they have influenced the transformation of the spatial organisation, form, and aesthetics of the city. The principal theoretical and methodological contributions aim to develop a typomorphological framework to study and understand the physical–spatial mode of organisation of planned built environments and to study their relationship to urban form. Although the political, economical and design frameworks in Montreal and Canada may be different, these are valid cases to define an approach applicable to other contexts. The objective is to develop tools to help designers and local authorities establish a dialogue between new built environments and the historical fabric of the city and to increase the spatial and morphological integration of new urban areas to its contextual urban fabric.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it