Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theme of this article is that the contradictory impulses found in modern land-use planning law are impossible to overcome. The analysis takes place at two levels; that is, on the level of law and on the level of land-use planning. In the first place, the case law on the decision-making authority of municipal bodies and their provincial review boards will be examined in an effort to clarify, if possible, the question of whether land development raises issues that are, at heart, law or policy and, consequently, whether they are entitled to intervention or deference by reviewing courts. That case law, which forms a shell for land-use planning approaches, is then filled in with an examination of divergent approaches toward fashioning the liveable city. The regulatory flux between density and sprawl and the tension between more recent new-urbanist designs and the traditional suburban development plan are explored, demonstrating that neo-urban hub developments are premised on a false vision of collective social experiences, while suburban garden developments are premised on the hollow dream of an idyllic society. Each of these competing approaches simultaneously answers the weaknesses of the other and contains weaknesses of its own that are answerable by the other. Given this incoherence, this article, therefore, endorses a substantial deregulation of the field. Paradoxically, this advocacy of privatization does not proceed, first and foremost, out of respect for the value of the market as efficient regulator; rather, it proceeds out respect for the values inherent in public regulation and administrative law – values which government land-use planning has found impossible to achieve.
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 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.111 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".