MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237403351 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14652087

Laneway redevelopment programs: a case study review

2021· preprint· en· W4237403351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christine Marie Oldnall

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedevelopmentNatural (archaeology)Environmental planningPoint (geometry)BusinessArchitectural engineeringPolitical scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The revitalization of formerly dark. dirty, and often uninviting urban spaces is occurring across many cities throughout North America. This is because the hundreds of kllometres of laneways located behind buildings are beginning to be viewed as Significant semi-public spaces and are being redeveloped into active spaces that can play a role in improving the state of the natural environment. The City of Toronto has a vast laneway system that is not being utilized to its full potential. This report attempts to demonstrate this point and suggests that there is an opportunity for recreating these laneways into vibrant spaces that support the natural environment while maintaining their primary functions as light vehicular thoroughfare.s and access points for homes and businesses. Through the examination of nine laneway redevelopment programs and projects this report highlights the successful techniques being implemented within these laneways and emphasizes the significant lessons that can be learned. Finally, each lesson learned is reviewed, and recommendations are given on how the City of Toronto can potentially address each point if attempting to implement its own laneway redevelopment program. Among a host of recommendations. this includes the need to promote laneway redevelopment through a change to the City's existing land use planning policies; the development of laneway design guidelines; and, the implementation of a dynamic funding system. Key words: Laneway, Redevelopment. Natural Environment, City of Toronto

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designOther design
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207