MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208528833 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14648565.v1

Experiential Density: Infill strategies within Toronto's Centres - Bringing Human Scale, Character, and Walkability

2021· preprint· en· W3208528833 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dustin Lee Sauder

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfillWalkabilityPedestrianArchitectural engineeringRealmApartmentGeographyPublic spaceUrban sprawlExperiential learningUrban planningPerceptionEconomic geographyCivil engineeringBuilt environmentEngineeringSociologyArchaeologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of approaches are being used to accommodate Toronto’s growing population. Most of these solutions rely on high-rise and mid-rise developments, emphasizing the quantity of density instead of the quality. However, this thesis focuses on blocks of slab towers, and explores how the perception of an environment and intensity of development can form an experiential density. Introducing new public and pedestrian orientated spaces to the neglected land between apartment towers to improve the experience of urban blocks also offers open space to increase the density in Toronto’s designated growth areas. To achieve this new environment, urban blocks containing clusters of slab towers will be fragmented into walkable distances; scaled outdoor spaces will activate the neglected park; infill will increase density and define outdoor spaces; and transitional areas will mediate the public and private realm, all to bring life into the block and improve experience of urban density.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Design and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207