Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a study in the practice of postwar urban design in Toronto, Canada, based on archival documents and interviews with participants. The narrative begins with the hiring of one British-trained architect/urban designer, Raymond Spaxman, by the City of Toronto Planning Board in 1966. Spaxman then set up a new division of staff that he filled with five or six other architect/urban designers of various national and institutional origins. The study describes the work carried out by these urban designers, identifies the principle themes apparent in it, and relates this to published literature on the founding principles of postwar urban design. In most ways, the study's findings fit the current understanding of the early discipline – concern for pedestrians, sympathy for historical preservation – but in others not – it was different from but not antagonistic towards planning. The findings are then considered as an example of the international transfer of postwar planning ideas. The process of idea transfer in this case looks to have been more chaotic, and less definable, than existing paradigms suggest, but this might have been fairly common in second-rank, immigrant-receiving cities.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".