MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082101314 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-12897

Common Ground: Reconsidering Contemporary Urban Development

2018· dissertation· en· W3082101314 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alberto Temprano

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanismContext (archaeology)Identity (music)Government (linguistics)GlobalizationPlan (archaeology)Place identityUrban planningCapital (architecture)Common groundEconomyGeographyPolitical sciencePolitical economyCivil engineeringArchitectural engineeringEnvironmental planningEngineeringSociologyArchitectureEconomicsLawAestheticsArchaeologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban Developments today are suffering an identity crisis.Market demands have led to a globalized urban standard, one of mixed-use.The 'mixed'-use model fails to mix anything in a meaningful way.The result is a packaged, off-the-shelf and easy to implement 'canned' urbanism.As a capital city, should Ottawa be concerned with how the built environment reflects its identity?Tunney's Pasture is far from the rolling meadows its name suggests.Instead, it is an outof-date idea of a government campus built in the 1950's.Today, Tunney's is seen as 'a wasteland.'New proposals fail to realize the site's potential.The Tunney's Pasture Master Plan will be critiqued as an example of a canned urban approach.An alternative proposal will be put forward: one based on principles different from globalization and mixed-use, that consider instead identity, historical context and the site's pastoral origins.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0190.107
Scholarly communication0.0280.022
Open science0.0030.026
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207