Bibliographic record
Abstract
We’re standing in the exact same spot. But you’re in a 15-minute city and I’m not. Why? We examine the City of Nanaimo, British Columbia, to find (overlapping amenity isochrone) zones where residents can live and have 15-minute walking access to “essential” (grocery, pharmacy) and “basic quality of life” amenities (recreational space, library, museum/gallery/theater/cinema, restaurant/pub, and cafe/coffee), but also daycares, public schools, foodbanks, and walk-in clinics. Depending on one’s needs, there are different 15-minute walking zones within the City. As one’s needs increase, fewer and smaller residential zones continue to qualify as 15-minute walkable. Of all the city neighbourhoods, downtown and downtown-adjacent Nanaimo offer the most extensive 15-minute walkability for residents, even residents with the most extensive needs. Initial investigation suggests that these zones offer affordable shelter for most of the top three income quintiles, but are on average unaffordable for those in the two lower income quintiles. Amenity overlap is greatest in residentially dense areas, and residential density provides more residents with walkability to existing amenities (and amenity owners with a proximate consumer base). As a result, A) zoning to permit density-increasing developments around amenity concentrations and, conversely, amenity development in areas of greater residential density (as well as pedestrian-friendly infrastructural improvements) – or B) combined amenity-residential density zoning in areas lacking both – would improve 15-minute walkability in the City of Nanaimo.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.231 | 0.050 |
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".