MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972744421 · doi:10.69554/pxes7816

The push for Ottawa’s mid-town: Getting to square one

2014· article· en· W2972744421 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Terrence Lonergan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of urban regeneration and renewal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSquare (algebra)GeographyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 31st largest city in North America, 4th in Canada, home to nearly 1,000,000 residents, Ottawa is a town in need of change. It can ill afford the financial burden and social impacts of its urban sprawl, and its traditional economic engine, the Canadian Government, no longer offers enough civil service jobs or incentives to the private sector to sustain the livelihood of its inhabitants. This paper deals with intensification, a policy introduced by Ontario in its Provincial Policy Statement (2005: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1485.aspx; revised 2014: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page10679.aspx) to counter urban sprawl, and suggests that, by giving priority to one of its components — the densification of arterial main streets — the municipal council may have stumbled on a way both to slow down the growth of suburbia and to make Ottawa more attractive to the people most likely to generate new ideas, new technologies and new jobs. The paper also explains how local community associations from the city’s 9th ward have, from the outset, prompted city councillors and officials to envisage main street densification along Merivale Road as a strategy contributing to Ottawa’s regeneration and renewal.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0310.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of urban regeneration and renewalSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207