Growing Ontario Responsibly: A Look At The Impact Of The Growth PlanFor The Greater Golden Horseshoe On Ontario's Economic Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Major Research Paper (MRP) will examine the consequences of the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) on the economic trends of southern Ontario. As a type of regulatory tool, the Growth Plan has inevitable market impacts that must be studied, understood, and mitigated when making policy decisions. Increasing evidence has pointed towards housing affordability, and supply of land and housing types, as two broad market impacts of regulatory tools that fall under the branch of ‘growth management’, ‘urban containment’, and ‘smart growth’. The subject of this MRP is the economic impact of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, imposed by the provincial government, and implemented on a municipal level. In 2015, the province initiated its first ten-year review of the 2006 Growth Plan for the GGH. The province released proposed amendments to the Growth Plan in the summer of 2016 following an analysis by a selected panel of experts and input from community consultations. It is anticipated that these proposed amendments will exasperate the widespread affordability issues of the GGH, create a more homogenous built form and building typology, and ignore the diversity of municipalities across the impacted area. A thorough analysis of these adverse effects will be provided along with recommendations on how the province can better balance the environmental, social, and economic goals of the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".