Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem, research strategy, and findings Despite the ubiquity of the concept of the complete community or neighborhood in Canadian planning practice and the recent spread of the idea in the United States, few scholars have examined the idea’s development and implications. Based on a content and thematic analysis of 102 plans and policies representing all Canadian provinces and territories, along with 205 planner interviews, I argue that the complete community represents an integrative, scalable, and flexible planning theory originating from practice. Borrowing principles from other theories (such as smart growth and sustainable development), practitioners built the complete community idea bottom-up, as a persuasive rhetorical vehicle for describing planning intentions and justifying higher densities in positive ways.Takeaway for practice Contemporary planning values increasing urban densities, mix, and walkability. Here I illustrate how planners adapted to community resistance to ideas generated by external experts—and to efforts to increase growth and densities—by articulating a socially and politically positive option for urban transformation. The complete community concept places a halo over density, promising vibrancy and livability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".