MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362512694 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-15345

Overbrook Renewal: The Redevelopment of Shallow Lot Public Housing

2022· dissertation· en· W4362512694 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alia Farhat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsRedevelopmentCorporationStock (firearms)Public housingUnit (ring theory)Built environmentEngineeringBusinessArchitectural engineeringSubdivisionVariety (cybernetics)Public administrationCivil engineeringEconomic growthEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceGeographyEconomicsFinanceComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ottawa's public housing stock, most of which is owned and maintained by Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (OCH), is reaching the end of its life cycle and is increasingly costly to maintain.This thesis focuses on the redevelopment of OCH's holdings in the Overbrook neighborhood.Unlike more notorious post-war examples, 1 this housing consists of low-rise, family-friendly dwellings integrated with private-sector housing.When evaluated against current municipal standards, however, the density is low, and energy performance of this housing is poor.Moreover, current residents, many of whom have raised families in their units, would benefit from a greater range of housing choices.Among the challenges facing the redevelopment of OCH's Overbrook properties is the shallow configuration of some lots.This thesis uses design as a form of research to explore higher-density solutions for these parcels while integrating a variety of unit types.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrbanization and City PlanningFrench-language works237,207