No Freeways on the Horizon : The Path to Livability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ranked once again as one of the “Most livable cities in the World” by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Vancouver has been consistently praised for its high quality of life (The Economist, 2016). A key component to the city’s livability has been its unique urban fabric, untainted by freeway infrastructure. This study will investigate how Vancouver has grown without any freeways, and how this may be related to the rise in ‘livability’ as a planning discourse in the city. Several social, economic, and political factors have played into this social change, many of which were condensed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Working within this time period, our research interpreted an interview and archival sources, public surveys, and regional planning strategies to understand what roles SPOTA (Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants Association), TEAM (The Electors’ Action Movement), and the ‘livability’ concept had in preventing the construction of freeways within Vancouver. Through this research we found that SPOTA’s ultimate contribution to the lack of freeways in Vancouver today is only influential given that its progress was carried on by TEAM and the promotion of livability in the following decade. TEAM played a largely underappreciated role in the stopping of freeways and from the beginning, the principles of livability held strong opinions against the use of automobiles. The results of this research will be key in exposing the history of ‘livability’ as a planning discourse, and why Vancouver will not accommodate for freeway construction. Through our research, we have identified a few instances of social amnesia among these topics in Vancouver, and our results are intended to alleviate some of this memory loss to maintain this social change.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".