Opportunities and barriers to sustainable urban development: an analysis of the Toronto Green Standard (Version 3)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div>The City of Toronto has pushed for sustainable development as a normative goal through the creation of the ‘Toronto Green Standard’ (TGS). The TGS requires all developments in the municipal boundary to meet a specified level of sustainability requirements. Since 2018, the TGS has provided the opportunity to reach three voluntary tiers beyond the required tier (tiers 2-4), further enhancing sustainable building performance in exchange for a development charge</div><div>refund. This report aims to determine the development characteristics most associated with Tier 2+. Results indicate that Tier 2+ developments are typically large-scale and mixed-use but vary given geographic context and developer characteristics. Moreover, results suggest that the</div><div>development charge refund may not be a sufficient incentive for most developers, indicating a need for incentive reform. This research is a significant case study for planners considering the challenges and opportunities of encouraging sustainability in urban development.</div><div>Key Words: Sustainable Development, Resilience, Toronto Green Standard, Incentives</div>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".