MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234369960 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14657463

Fixing Boundaries: An International Review Of Greenbelt Boundaries

2021· preprint· en· W4234369960 on OpenAlexaffabout
Greg MacDonald

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoundary (topology)Metropolitan areaLegislationEnvironmental planningGeographyMaritime boundaryCapital (architecture)Regional scienceBoundary linePolitical sciencePublic administrationArchaeologyEngineeringLawInternational law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The legislation governing Ontario’s Greater Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt is set to be reviewed in 2015. This will be the first opportunity to review the defined boundaries of the protected area. This paper examines four other greenbelt areas to provide insight into how the province should deal with boundaries at the review. The case study areas are Ottawa’s National Capital Greenbelt, British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Reserve, London’s Metropolitan Greenbelt and Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary. Based on lessons from these case studies, the paper concludes with recommendations to provide a structure to the greenbelt review process, including harmonizing boundary definitions and exploring a more flexible approach to boundary definition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207