Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The City of Toronto is in the midst of an affordable housing crisis. Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) is a planning tool that has been heralded by many as a possible solution and has</p> <p>been widely used in the United States. This study aims to explore the implementation of the City of Toronto's IZ policy, specifically developer perceptions, to understand the potential impacts. IZ requires developers of new residential developments to set aside a portion of the building's total units to be sold or rented as affordable housing. The City of Toronto has opted to implement a mandatory policy with no incentives for developers.</p> <p>This decision has been received poorly by many in the development community and a recurring theme from the interview process is the need for a partnership model. As</p> <p>such, the City of Toronto should embrace and consider ways of supporting IZ outside of financial contributions.</p> <p><br></p> <p>Key Words: inclusionary zoning, development, affordable housing, Toronto, rental, ownership, partnership</p>
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".