MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4240534825 · doi:10.32920/14648502.v1

Does Subway Station Proximity Spur Residential Development? Analyzing the Impact of the Sheppard Subway Line on Housing Development in the City of Toronto

2021· preprint· en· W4240534825 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alyson Naseer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKilometerPaceGeographyTransport engineeringScale (ratio)Residential areaEngineeringCivil engineeringCartographyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the pace and scale of residential development within a 1-kilometer radius of subway stations along the Sheppard Subway line within the City of Toronto during the years 1991-2016. The dataset used for this study was obtained from Statistics Canada that contained data on the number of housing units per dissemination area within a 1-kilometer radius of a subway station in addition to several variables used for analysis. The difference- in-differences method was used, findings indicated insignificant results meaning the Sheppard Subway Line did not spur residential development at a rate faster than the one observed for the Sheppard West corridor. This was further proved by examining the pace of development during the pre-treated and post-treated period amongst both the treated and control groups, findings indicated that both groups received similar amounts of residential growth, such that the difference in residential construction between the two corridors was statistically insignificant.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designObservational
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 topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→