MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390754147 · doi:10.1080/02665433.2023.2296922

The Curtis Report as a critical juncture in Canadian urbanism

2024· article· en· W4390754147 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David L. A. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Perspectives · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsJunctureUrbanismSuburbanizationAntecedent (behavioral psychology)Public administrationGovernment (linguistics)Great DepressionPolitical scienceSociologyPolitical economyHistoryLawEngineeringArchaeologyArchitectureDemographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's post-Second World War policies on urbanism were first outlined in an obscure government document – the 1944 report of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Planning of the federal government's Advisory Committee on Reconstruction (known colloquially as the ‘Curtis Report’). This article uses the tools of Historical Institutionalism and extensive archival research to analyse the Curtis Report. It examines antecedent conditions in the Depression and war; permissive conditions during the wartime housing crisis; the actors and choice of options at the critical juncture; the reactions during implementation and the path-dependent municipal planning and suburbanization outcomes of the report. The Curtis Report is identified as a critical juncture for major changes in housing and community planning that set Canada on a different course than the UK or the USA.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0460.050
Scholarly communication0.0210.004
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlanning PerspectivesSame topicPolitical and Economic history of UK and USFrench-language works237,207