MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946959751 · doi:10.25316/ir-1428

The planning system and the development of mosques on the Greater Toronto Area

2000· article· en· W2946959751 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVIUSpace (Vancouver Island University Library) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture and Cultural Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental planningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planning for places of worship in contemporary multicultural cities requires that policies and regulations be responsive to the spiritual needs of people of diverse faiths. This article assesses the experience of establishing mosques - Islamic places of worship - in the Toronto area. By 1997, twenty-seven mosques had been established: five built anew and the rest in adapted buildings. They were accommodated fairly within the existing planning policies and zoning bylaws. The assessment also shows that the relevant policies are ambiguous, and that planning standards, particularly concerning traffic and parking, are subject to divergent and contentious interpretations, resulting in widely recognized uncertainties and delays in the planning process. The article points out the subtext of social and political contentiousness that lies beneath the public discussions of planning issues. It concludes with a set of recommendations for both planners and developers of mosques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.157 · 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