Tax Reform As If Sustainability Mattered: A Policy Analysis To DemonstrAte The Viability Of Environmental Tax Shifting In Vancouver’S Sustainability Precinct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Enclosed on the north by mountains, the west by ocean and on the east and south by the Agricultural Land Reserve and the US border, the City of Vancouver (hereinafter ‘Vancouver’) exists in a very confined region and, by nature, has become a compact city. These geographical constraints, particularly in the downtown/ central area, have forced Vancouver to move increasingly towards more concentrated development strategies. Perhaps the most successful and seminal in providing Vancouver with an endorsed policy direction was the Central Area Plan (CAP). This plan encouraged ‘living first in downtown’ by redeveloping high density neighbourhoods on remediated brownfield sites, enhancing local transit and reducing the need for transportation trips and commuting.3 Despite CAP’s success, which has resulted in a downtown population increase of 40,000 to 60,000,4 per capita resource consumption continues to increase, placing a strain on both municipal services and the surrounding natural environment. Vancouver’s ecological footprint is now 19 times its area and rising.5 Additionally, over the past decade, Vancouver’s industrial land base had consistently shrunk, reaching a low of 6 per cent in 1995.6 This shrinkage, and subsequent decline in job availability, has contravened CAP’s goals as greater numbers of residents have to commute or move out of Vancouver in search of work. These repercussions have caused Vancouver to consider developing a 223 hectare (550 acre/24 million ft2) parcel of vacant and/or largely underutilized urban land.7 This land, now known as The False Creek Sustainability Precinct (hereinafter ‘Precinct’), is well located in relation to the downtown area and has direct train links and port access. In 1999,
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".