Examining Considerations of Social Sustainability And Equity Within Integrated Community Sustainability Plans in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concepts of sustainability, and sustainability planning, have become prominent in the last thirty years. In 2005, the Canadian government created a budget plan that was intended to fund infrastructure projects in municipalities across the country, as well as catalyze and strengthen sustainability planning within municipalities across the nation. In order for municipalities to receive the funding they needed to create Integrated Community Sustainability Plans (ICSPs) or provincial variants (ex. strategic sustainability plans). This thesis comparatively analyzes select integrated community sustainability plans in the Province of Ontario, Canada with specific focus placed on how and whether ICSPs address, define and advance social equity goals and principles in sustainability planning. Two questions drive the research: 1) How have ICSPs considered equity principles in their design and implementation; and, 2) How does variation in the degree of community involvement in sustainability planning influence how equity is addressed? This study draws upon qualitative methods including a comparative document analysis of ICSPs in Ontario and semi-structured key informant interviews. The overall findings suggested that equity was not strongly considered in the ICSPs analysed. There were few key results that emphasised this. Firstly there was a disconnect between policy goals and details within implementation strategies. There was found to be a lack of prioritization of equity, particularly with meaningful consideration of distributional equity. Lastly a lack of prescriptive guidance by the federal government and FCM with respect to goals and implementation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".