Exploring Transformative Place-Making within the Comprehensive Spatial Governance of Toronto
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Place-making is often seen as a more community-friendly means of developing urban space, as opposed to market-oriented, property-led forms of urban development. However, broadly perceived as the adjustment of spaces in line with the needs of people, place-making is criticised as being ill-defined and failing to consider the wider context in which any place-making effort is inevitably embedded. This paper establishes a connection between wider structuring forces, particularly those connected to neoliberal shifts in spatial planning and governance, and looks at “place-making” from a governance point of view. Efforts that combine social and spatial elements to address the needs of diverse communities in two areas in Toronto are showcased: one commercially viable for and one unattractive to private property development. The comparative analysis reveals the opportunities and limitations of these efforts, particularly in terms of their ability to transform existing spatial governance arrangements and the connected capacity to influence beyond the micro-scale.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it