Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enrichment of subcultures within a city creates a strong character for communities to thrive. Urban contexts have increasingly disinvested and disengaged from publicly accessible infrastructure—the physical spaces which bind the basis of civic life—in favour of privatized or exclusive spaces. This neglect has caused increasing polarization and weakened shared values, places, and communities. This thesis examines how to reactivate civic assets and underutilized publicly owned spaces to foster inclusion and celebrate existing shared community resources and programs within Toronto's neighbourhoods. The research will develop a central community common space and a physical network that encourages human-scale walkability and wayfinding to existing civic assets such as pedestrian laneways, NGOs, and publicly funded institutions. This thesis explores how a human-centred design approach can create visibility and transparency for local resources, both community members and visitors, to navigate within a neighbourhood.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.002 |
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".