MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782974919 · doi:10.1007/s10901-017-9587-9

Vacancy in shrinking downtowns: a comparative study of Québec, Ontario, and New England

2018· article· en· W2782974919 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Justin B. Hollander, Maxwell Hartt, Andrew Wiley, Shannon Vavra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Housing and the Built Environment · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownGeographyScope (computer science)Economic geographyContext (archaeology)GlobePopulation declineHuman geographyPopulation growthPopulationRegional scienceDemographyArchaeologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In North America and around the globe, there has been emerging recognition of the size and scope of urban shrinkage, yet little is understood about how decline impacts commercial centers and downtowns. In order to facilitate geographically targeted policymaking, this paper examines the physical patterns of downtown decline in three distinct regions. We seek to test the hypothesis that differences in the process of urban decline in downtown districts vary due to national or historic context. Using statistical analysis and direct observations, we found that while the scale of population decline was greatest in New England, downtowns in both Ontario and Québec have seen substantial decline and have appeared to have better weathered the change with respect to physical signs of decline.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Housing and the Built EnvironmentSame topicUrbanization and City PlanningFrench-language works237,207