MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995549210 · doi:10.7202/1065672ar

John Howard’s High Park

2019· article· en· W2995549210 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
David Haward Bain

Bibliographic record

VenueOntario History · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLandscape and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeorge (robot)EstateGeographyEnvironmental ethicsHistoryPolitical scienceLawArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1837, architect John George Howard purchased 165 acres west of Toronto as a country estate that he named High Park. In 1876, he donated his land to the city and, almost until his death in 1890, was the primary force behind the planning and development of a natural or forest park that is almost 400 acres in size today. This article looks at John Howard’s efforts during his lifetime, as well as his continuing influence in the decades after his death. It also examines the idea of a forest park in an urban setting, and the ideas, events and individuals that have shaped one of Canada’s important urban parks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.149
Teacher spread0.129 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOntario HistorySame topicLandscape and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207