MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6884623731 · doi:10.11575/prism/1595

Downtown redevelopment: a case study of the City of Airdrie

2008· other· en· W6884623731 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownRedevelopmentUrban regenerationPedestrianStakeholderSatellite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this Master's Degree Project is to determine what adaptations to conventional downtown revitalization strategies are necessary to turn a downtown in a medium sized satellite city into a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly area. The City of Airdrie is used as a case study. To this end, the MDP examines the conventional downtown redevelopment strategies. An analysis of these strategies indicates that there are inherent assumptions in the literature which make these strategies insufficient for downtown redevelopment in a satellite city. These assumptions include a particular historical trajectory, spatial location of the city, city size. As the literature has a USA bias, additional case studies from Alberta investigate what downtown redevelopment strategies are being utilized more locally. The literature review leads to the development of a new analytical framework for examining satellite city downtown redevelopment. That framework emphasizes locational advantages while addressing the spatial economy, pedestrian flow generation, urban design and stakeholder participation. This project proposes that successful downtown redevelopment in a satellite city requires a modified approach.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)French-language works237,207