MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926350367 · doi:10.25316/ir-17847

Potential residential spaces for local food production in a suburban municipality

2022· other· en· W6926350367 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRace, Identity, and Education in Brazil
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityProductivityFood processingProduction (economics)YardCity region

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case study aimed to examine the potential areas for local food production in the City of Langford, a suburban municipality on southern Vancouver Island, Canada. To this end, initially, different zones of Langford were inspected to identify the areas with potential for growing food. After the selection of the city center, neighbourhood, and hillside/shoreline as three city zones to be used as research cases, the data related to their various spaces, including roofs, balconies, and yards (back or front yards), were collected using field observations and aerial images. The obtained data were then utilized to estimate the area of the places with potential for local food growing. The results demonstrated that the total usable private open spaces in the City of Langford for local food production represents an area between 1.125 km2 and 2.25 km2 in various productivity scenarios. Based on the research findings, around 35% of residential open spaces might provide some areas for local food production in this city. This research also discusses the importance of urban gardening for global economic and social sustainability issues and offered some initiatives to encourage communities to take advantage of the current possibilities for local food production.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRace, Identity, and Education in BrazilFrench-language works237,207