Does Neighbourhood Design Impact Social Interactions Amongst Neighbours? Studying the Influence of Neighbourhood Built-form & Type on Socialization Among Neighbours in Canadian Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban planning has devoted significant effort to exploring the linkages between neighbourhood design and social interactions. With the increasing popularity of New Urbanism, the role New Urbanist design features play in promoting neighbourly socialization and strengthening communal bonds have become widely debated. This thesis contributes to the existing literature by researching how socialization differs between New Urbanist and traditional suburban neighbourhoods and whether the socialization difference, if any, results from differences in neighbourhood structure and design. This thesis uses a data set comprised of eight neighbourhoods - four of which are New Urbanist neighbourhoods and the other four are traditional suburban neighbourhoods. Using ordered probit regression modelling, the extent of socialization that stems from households’ demographic characteristics and the housing-level and neighbourhood-level physical design features is determined. The results indicate that socialization is more likely to be influenced by the amalgamated effect of neighbourhood type, rather than design features alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".