An urbanistic approach to aggregate quarrying: a case study in Brampton, Ontario
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reclamation of urban aggregate quarries has been recognised as a serious concern for built environment design and planning fields. However, much of the literature and research centred on this challenge tends to focus on the immediate techno-scientific reclamation practices employed at a site scale often towards the end of extraction. This essay argues for a reversal of this relationship between the designer/planner and the extraction-reclamation timeline. It does so by articulating an approach based upon ‘scenario planning’ that places reclamation planning and design at the beginning of the quarry timeline rather than at the end. Further, an example of this approach in Brampton, Ontario, is analysed to determine the strengths and weaknesses of urbanistic reclamation strategies. If we pivot towards designing reclaimed landscapes from the outset, we can use such sites as the beginning point for structuring cities, rather than leaving them as holes in the urban fabric.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it