MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245808412 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14665641

Resilience in Suburban Toronto Suburban Renewal in the Face of Future Uncertainties

2021· preprint· en· W4245808412 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adam Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban resilienceStock (firearms)FragilityZoningResilience (materials science)Face (sociological concept)Psychological resilienceEconomic geographyEnvironmental planningBusinessGeographySociologyUrban planningEngineeringCivil engineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis envisions a new suburban approach based on future uncertainties in environmental, economic and social conditions. The review of responses suggest that resilience building is a viable option for such uncertainties and therefore, focus has been placed on Toronto's suburban housing stock, despite criticism for its fragility and inability to function or change in a future without cheap energy. Although it is often argued that low density neighbourhoods will be unsustainable in a future of environmental uncertainty and that they will not endure the coming crises of peak oil and climate change, Toronto's suburban building stock is ideal for resilience building and will in fact be a vital aspect of Toronto's durability in an uncertain future. This thesis examines different aspects of resilience building in regards to environmental, social and economic uncertainty including: localisation over globalisation, economies of well-being, an ecological systems approach, and rethinking zoning regulations and by-laws. This new vision for the suburbs serves not to replace them with dense urban models, but to maintain and add to suburban qualities while also provoking new ideas for introducing resilience into our built environment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207