MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4236623988 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14647791.v1

Enabling Indigenous urban design : an examination of theory and precedents for application in Winnipeg

2021· preprint· en· W4236623988 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Neil Loewen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAustralian GovernmentFederation of Canadian Municipalities
KeywordsIndigenousAotearoaUrban designSalientGeographyLaggingPopulationSociologyEnvironmental planningUrban planningGender studiesEngineeringCivil engineeringEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research paper explores strategies for including Indigenous identities in the design of urban spaces and provides recommendations for the City of Winnipeg. As Canada’s Indigenous population is now primarily situated in urban areas there is growing demand for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit cultural expression to influence the design of the spaces these populations inhabit in cities. A review of salient literature pertaining to Indigenous involvement in planning processes and the translation of culture into urban design provides a theoretical basis for further investigation. Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand’s Maori Design Principles are used as a relevant precedent study. The search for precedents uncovers that practice is lagging far behind theory. Theory and precedent study inform a series of recommended actions for the City of Winnipeg with the intent of enabling Indigenous urban design in both reserve and off-reserve settings.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.015
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation→French-language works237,207→