The changing place of condominiums across a metropolitan area, 1970–2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By definition, all condominiums share social features and challenges of governance, but they have inspired two separate narratives: as suburban, often gated, communities and as downtown high‐rises or conversions. In Canada, as elsewhere, research has focused on large urban areas, neglecting subtly different dynamics in smaller centres. The purpose of this case study of mid‐sized Hamilton, Ontario, was to assess whether and how those dynamics are different across a whole metro area, using newspapers and building permit data. It tracks the changing place of condo developments and conversions across Hamilton since 1970. For decades, most developments were suburban town (row) houses; since 2000, downtown revival has included conversions and taller, new‐build projects. It argues that early developments and conversions reflected a “value gap” in relation to purpose‐built rental apartments. Led by a migrant arts community, recent centralization has exploited an inner‐city “rent gap,” coupled with a popular reassessment of urban living .
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".