Interrogating communities of expertise on urban conservation and development: past and future of ‘public and open spaces’ in the old city of Tunis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter examines whether and how the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) Recommendation, as presently worded, is situated to address sustainable development of historic urban sites in Canada, particularly in areas where unresolved land claims and other impacts of colonialism are still felt deeply in Aboriginal communities. The existence and nature of Aboriginal title in Canada has been the subject of numerous Supreme Court of Canada decisions beginning in the 1970s and culminating most recently in the Tsilhqot'in decision in June 2014. The Royal Proclamation formed the basis for future treaty negotiations between the British Crown and Aboriginal peoples in Canada and for modern-day land claims covering unceded territories in Canada. The real possibility of controversy over who holds title to historic urban sites on suh lands and the consequent lack of clarity as to who holds decision-making power with respect to those sites, renders any negotiation and decision-making processes over sustainable development of those sites highly challenging.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".