Evaluating land use issues in places of worship: a case of Hindu temples in the GTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, every citizen has the right to pursue their cultural and religious heritage. Temples in the GTA are becoming an ideal place for Hindu communities to express their values in a foreign environment. As a result, they serve a vital function for the community on many levels, including psychological, social, and symbolic. This paper explores how Hindu faith group deal with land use planning issues related to locational constraints and zoning bylaws provisions when they establish temples in their communities. The research is based on a literature analysis of various scholarly works on places of worship and land use provisions as well as views and experiences of members from temple organizations and planners from the City of Toronto on the development process of temple construction. In addition, the paper includes case studies of two Hindu temples in the GTA and looks at the legislative and policy frameworks for places of worship. The research aims to underline the importance of temples in broader social undertakings, such as preserving the Hindu religion and culture for future generations. These research findings provide suggestions for a process for locating temples that meets the needs of both Hindu communities and other residents, and minimizes conflicts related to land use designations such as employment lands.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".