MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6940012787 · doi:10.7480/iphs.2022.1.6501

Evaluating the Impact of the Community Planning Association of Canada in the Post-War Revival of Canadian Planning

2022· article· en· W6940012787 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBK BOOKS · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)CorporationAssociation (psychology)SuburbanizationProcess (computing)Urban planningPublic healthPublic policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Community Planning Association of Canada (CPAC) played a key role in advocating for the re-establishment of planning in Canada. The CPAC was remarkably effective, with broad popular support with thousands of citizen members in the late 1950s. The CPAC educated the public about the purpose of community planning and encouraged public participation at local and regional scales across Canada from 1946 until the Association collapsed in 1979. We believe that 1944 to 1947 period was a critical juncture establishing planned suburban development in Canada as a path-dependent process with tremendous momentum into the 21st century. During this period, the federal government set post-war reconstruction objectives, and both Central (now Canada) Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the CPAC were formed. It is still yet to be determined whether the formation of the CMHC or CPAC was the critical juncture. Using a historical-institutional approach, the role of CMHC and the influence of the CPAC is examined. An analysis of key events, actors, and themes, relying on extensive archival material from 1944-64, demonstrates that the CPAC gave tremendous push along the path dependent process of suburbanization in post-war 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBK BOOKSSame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207