Towards a More “Reasonable” Ontario Municipal Board: Looking to Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The powerful Ontario Municipal Board (OMB, or the Board) has long been maligned as an unelected provincial body with the authority to meddle with local land-use planning decisions. Concurrently, politicians have been accused of abusing the purpose of the OMB by pushing politically contentious decisions on the Board, rather than oppose an active neighbourhood association. This paper argues that these issues stem from the Board’s "standard of review", which guides the OMB to make the "most correct" decision, sometimes in opposition to the municipality. If the OMB adopted a standard of review of "reasonableness" when reviewing land use planning appeals like the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board does, much greater deference would be given to municipalities by the Board. This would keep the expertise of the OMB intact, without the radical impacts to development that may accompany the creation of a new process for appealing municipal decisions.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".