MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995106438 · doi:10.1111/cag.12589

The view beyond downtown luxury towers: Diversity of condominium developments in a contemporary mid‐sized city

2019· article· en· W2995106438 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mathew Novak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownMetropolitan areaGentrificationGeographyEconomic geographyDiversity (politics)Quarter (Canadian coin)EconomyEconomic growthRegional sciencePolitical scienceArchaeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A proliferation of condominiums is fundamentally changing the built, social, and economic fabric of Canada's cities. While developments may be found throughout the urban landscape of cities large and small, most of the contemporary research focuses on luxury towers in the urban cores of Toronto and Vancouver. The following study examines the complete inventory of all condominium units in Halifax, Nova Scotia, revealing spatial and temporal patterns in their development. Nearly 60% of Halifax's condominium units are found in the suburbs, with only 20% in the downtown. Condominium units built since 2010 command the highest prices, surpassing the median single detached house price in the city, while older units from the 1970s and 1980s remain largely affordable. Recent developments can be found in gentrifying neighbourhoods; however, they remain a minority as many more units are found in middle‐class suburbs and wealthy inner‐city neighbourhoods. Owing to their varied manifestations, the predominant associations of condominiums with a downtown, luxury housing format needs expanding to include locations throughout the metropolitan area, distinct building types, and wide range of prices .

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennesSame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207