The Implementation of Compact Development in Moncton, New Brunswick: Perspectives from Developers
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 promotion of compact development aimed at reducing urban sprawl has long been a dominant planning approach in major urban centres. However, mid-sized cities have struggled to cultivate a market for this development model despite policy commitments. This paper examines how property developers in Moncton, New Brunswick, respond to compact development’s principles and policies. Results indicate that while many developers align with the planning policies favouring higher-density and mixed-use models, they prefer suburban development over urban infill and adaptive reuse. Developers generally support compact development but seek greater market certainty and regulatory lessening before fully committing to building greater densities. The research highlights a disconnect between temporal and spatial dimensions of urban development priorities and associated impacts on the implementation of residential densification. While planners focus on spatial aspects to achieve policy goals, developers prioritise the timing of projects to ensure financial feasibility and economically profitable returns.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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