MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253471766 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14657217

Strip plazas in the suburbs: a redevelopment framework for convenience centres

2021· preprint· en· W4253471766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalie Elizabeth Hickey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedevelopmentPlan (archaeology)EstateService (business)BusinessReal estateBoroughUrban regenerationHousing estateTown centreGeographyTransport engineeringEnvironmental planningCivil engineeringEngineeringMarketingFinanceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Convenience centres are a prominent retail form in the suburban communities of Toronto. Built to satisfy the goods and service needs of the people who inhabit the suburbs, convenience centres were first built in the post-war era, and consist of one-story retail units connected by a shared canopy. They have one or more rows of parking adjacent to the street and are designed to create a convenient experience for drivers. Convenience centres in Toronto typically occupy real estate along the Avenues and major arterial roads: areas designated in the City of Toronto Official plan to support future intensification, density, and housing. Therefore, the research in this project describes a set of recommendations in the form of a framework for redevelopment of convenience centres. It also outlines a case study for a site in Scarborough, Ontario, in which this framework was applied. Key words: retail; strip plaza; convenience centre; suburbs; redevelopment; Toronto;

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.018
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207