MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232233948 · doi:10.3138/uhr.46.02.05

Humphrey Carver and the Federal Government’s Postwar Revival of Canadian Community Planning

2018· article· en· W4232233948 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
David L. A. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationCorporationWorld War IIAgency (philosophy)Political scienceWork (physics)ManagementLawSociologyEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humphrey S.M. Carver (1902–1995) played an important role in the federal government’s revival of Canadian community planning following the Second World War and guiding Canada’s transformation into a suburban nation. Carver was a senior executive at Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) from 1948 until his retirement in 1967. While Carver’s work as a housing advocate is well documented, his role as an advocate for community planning is less known. He was the founding vice-president of the Community Planning Association of Canada (CPAC) in 1947, president of the Town Planning Institute of Canada (TPIC), 1963–4, and a vice-president of the American Society of Planning Officials. While at CMHC, he assisted in the rapid national expansion of the CPAC and the 1953 resuscitation of the TPIC. His agency funded the establishment of the first five Canadian planning schools, hundreds of planning scholarships, and millions of dollars in planning research and planning studies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0130.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207