The asocial society and urban form in Canada: A scoping study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2018, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) in Canada identified the ‘Emerging Asocial Society’ as a Future Global Challenge Area. This ‘asociality’—our collective lack of engagement and disconnection; the pandemic of loneliness—is escalating. And while perceived as worsening, it is not new, and had been identified as a concern in the latter half of the mid-twentieth century. Because this phenomenon also coincides with a significant shift in built form / neighbourhood configuration patterns during the post-War era, a possible link between asociality and urban design is difficult to ignore. Based on the hypothesis that urban form contributes to growing disengagement, this scoping study documents recent research examining the relationship between urban form and social outcomes in Canada. The intent is two-fold: First, to document the extent and nature of social outcome-based urban form research in Canadian municipalities, and second, to examine the research as a body of work. This review reveals an overall lack of Canadian-specific studies on this topic, and what is available lacks geographic and methodological diversity. Though limited by these two aspects, and despite most articles not examining third spaces specifically, the research points to the important role ‘third spaces’ play in creating social connectivity. Nuanced information about organizing urban form around third spaces also emerges, providing insight into opportunities at different urban scales. Further, viewing the research through this ‘third space’ lens reveals gaps in knowledge and therefore helps identify future research opportunities capable of influencing residential development policy in municipalities across Canada.
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 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 | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".