MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2902861519 · doi:10.22215/etd/2017-12107

Regenerating the Heart of Rural Ontario: New Life for Old Mills

2017· dissertation· en· W2902861519 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carly Farmer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsperityMillRedevelopmentBoomVitalitySustainabilityEquity (law)PopulationEconomic growthGeographyEconomyEngineeringBusinessPolitical scienceArchaeologySociologyCivil engineeringEconomicsEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Old mills are at the heart of most towns in Ontario, and mark the start of the industrial boom which provided good middle class jobs for nearly everyone for over a century.However, from 2002-2012, Ontario lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs, equivalent to 30% of the industry.1 Typical of many rural industrial communities, Smiths Falls is left with the challenges of a shrinking population and underused or vacant industrial buildings.This thesis explores innovative ways to adaptively reuse the Wood's Mill Complex in Smiths Falls in a way that positively impacts the region by reconnecting the community with their industrial heritage.The project investigates the role of social equity, cultural vitality, economic prosperity and environmental sustainability in the rehabilitation process and how this contributes to community resilience.This study of the Wood's Mill Complex could serve as a case study and guide for the sustainable rehabilitation of other vacant mills and industrial sites in rural Canada. 1 Jeff Rubin, "The Future Looks Bleak for Ontario's Manufacturing Sector," The Globe and Mail, December 30, 2013.AbstrAct Figure 0.1.Wood's Mills in historic streetscape iii I would like to thank my thesis advisors Mariana Esponda Cascajares and Mario Santana Quintero for their valuable guidance on this project.I would like to thank the Carleton Immersive Media Studio for lending me the survey equipment.A special thanks to Michael Gutland, Sujan Shrestha and Benia Semujanga for their assistance with the total station and laser scanner

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0370.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Industries and Urban Development→French-language works237,207→