Urban Planning and the Suburbs: Solutions for Sustainability from the Edges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thematic issue of Urban Planning includes five articles that engage critically with the debates regarding the sustainability of suburbs. Contributions include a long-term perspective of the persistence of automobile-based planning and culture in Canada; an assessment of transportation modes among high-rise condominium apartment residents in Toronto’s outer suburbs; an evaluation of policy prescribed social-mix in France’s banlieues; a study of hyper-diversity in Peel Region in the Greater Toronto Area, which positions suburbs as centers of diversity; and an analysis of how the implementation and governance of new urbanist designs in three US communities has generally failed to achieve social objectives. The articles put into question the common approach of implementing suburban sustainability policy via urbanization and social mix. Together, the contributions point to the need for more stringent restrictions on automobile use, enhanced transit service in the suburbs, emphasis on bottom-up, community-driven policy-making, recognition of multiple dimensions of diversity, and strong political leadership to drive sustainability policy forward.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".