MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200230384 · doi:10.32920/17263832.v1

Public Participation In Protecting Food Resources: The Case Of Federal Lands In Pickering

2021· preprint· en· W4200230384 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sanja Kornicer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsPublic administrationPublic participationPlan (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Public policyBusinessPublic relationsResistance (ecology)Public opinionPolitical sciencePublic landAgricultureGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1972, the federal government’s plan to build the second major Toronto airport in the north Pickering area met strong public resistance that put the project on hold in 1975. This project investigates the role of public engagement in land use policy and the protection of agricultural lands by reviewing the literature on the Pickering Airport from a historical perspective and conducting archival research of historical records and documents from 1972 to the present. Consulting the literature on public discourse, I examine whether a 45 year-long delay in the completion of the airport could be solely attributed to public participation in policy making. The paper will focus on effective use of media, scientific evidence and expert advice that are leading to deadlocks in a process full of inconsistencies in government decision making, influenced by electoral politics, changing governments and jurisdictional differences between federal and provincial governments.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0730.023
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→