MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250028152 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14661066

Make Art, not Sprawl: Using Form-Based Codes to Create Complete, Compact, and Livable Suburban Communities

2021· preprint· en· W4250028152 on OpenAlexaff
Chi Chi Cai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture and Computational Design
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban sprawlZoningSmart growthNeighbourhood (mathematics)UrbanizationContext (archaeology)Environmental planningUrban planningGrowth managementPopularityGeographyBusinessEconomic growthTransport engineeringPolitical scienceLand useCivil engineeringEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

North American cities are experiencing rapid rates of urbanization and development, and it has become evident that the conventional Euclidean zoning model has failed to guide growth in a healthy, livable, and sustainable direction. This model, along with existing municipal fiscal policies and social preferences, enables the production of built forms that are conducive to sprawl. This MRP focuses on form-based codes (FBCs), and how this planning tool can be used to help combat sprawl and achieve the successful development of Smart Growth communities within a suburban context. An understanding of the existing literature, best practices, and analysis of the existing built form in the Fleetwood Town Center neighbourhood of the City of Surrey, British Columbia will help to justify the need for a more flexible zoning model. This research has shaped a set of recommendations to the City of Surrey to aid them in the development and implementation of their own FBCs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designNot applicable
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 topicArchitecture and Computational DesignFrench-language works237,207