The Future of Calgary's Community Parks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Alberta, municipal policy regarding the preservation of urban park space has been evolving since legislative changes were made in 2010 to enable municipalities to use surplus school reserve sites for a range of purposes in addition to green space. Many competing demands for these sites have been put forth by a variety of proponents, including citizens and community associations, school boards, the development industry, affordable housing providers and advocates, and municipalities. This capstone project examines the politics that underlie the current public policy debates on these competing uses of municipal park space in Alberta, in particular, the reuse of vacant school reserve sites for affordable housing. The desire to build affordable housing or other community services on Municipal and School Reserve (MSR) lands has arisen as a result of two economic factors: 1) Alberta’s resource-based economy creates a short-run, cyclical volatility in housing demand and pricing; 2) this is exacerbated by the long-term goal of reducing urban sprawl, which puts upward pressure on land costs by restricting the supply of suburban land available for new housing. In Alberta, these factors came together when the “superheated economy” of 2006 and 2007 strained housing supply across the province, doubling house prices in three years, and leaving many with inadequate shelter. One solution that has been embraced by municipal and provincial leaders in both Calgary and Edmonton is the use of vacant school reserve sites for affordable housing. In 2010, legislation was amended to allow vacant school reserve sites to be used for affordable housing or other community services, instead of being used for parks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.001 |
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".