Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005 the Ontario Provincial Government introduced the Greenbelt Act, a piece of legislation that essentially capped Greenfield development in the Greater Toronto Area. In response to this policy some developers began to “leap-frog” the Greenbelt and secure development land north of the protected area, while others began to look inward to the built urban and suburban centres for intensification opportunities. Although supported by Provincial and Municipal interventionist policies there has been little intensification in the urban core. The City of Toronto's 2010 Avenues &ly ten projects have been completed. This paper, through a literature review including international sources and case studies and current policies, will examine the barriers to intensification. In addition, a qualitative key informant study of Greater Toronto Area developers and other professionals involved in midrise development will be pursued in order to establish what are the barriers to intensification. KEY WORDS: City of Toronto, Mid-Rise, Avenues, Intensification, Zoning, Places to Grow, Policy, Infill, Urban, Development
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".