MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230275031 · doi:10.3138/chr.92.2.295

Modernism at a Crossroad: The Spadina Expressway Controversy in Toronto, Ontario ca. 1960–1971

2011· article· en· W4230275031 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Danielle Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafeguardingPublic administrationPolitical scienceCivil rightsCivil servantsUrban planningPunitive damagesLandmarkModernism (music)SociologyLawCivil engineeringPoliticsGeographyEngineeringHistoryCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The Spadina Expressway controversy in Toronto, Ontario, was sparked by a proposal to run an expressway into the heart of the city. The dispute was part of a broader movement against high modernist planning that swept American and Canadian cities in the 1960s and 1970s. Frustrated by unresponsive politicians and civic officials, citizen activists challenged authorities with an alternate vision for cities that prioritized the safeguarding of the urban environment by preserving communities, preventing environmental degradation, and promoting public transit. By the latter half of the 1960s, citizen activists were no longer fighting alone, as some politicians and civil servants also turned against more traditional modes of city planning. This politicization of urban planning and transportation schemes culminated in the defeat of expressway networks in cities across Canada and the United States, including the Spadina Expressway in 1971. A landmark decision and important precursor to the municipal reform movement that would follow, the legacy of the Spadina episode was nevertheless mixed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0110.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207