MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6998613103

Analysis of indicators of sustainability in a residential development, case study, uptown core and Iroquois Ridge communities, town of Oakville, Ontario

2000· dissertation· en· W6998613103 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2000
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilitySet (abstract data type)Relation (database)Sustainable developmentCore (optical fiber)Land use
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis evaluates sustainable community planning and design indicators as applied to conventional and alternative residential developments. Two developments similar in size, location and land use patterns were the sources of the data. The conventional development represents a design as defined under current Ontario municipal development standards. The second community challenges the existing standards and introduces a new set of alternative design criteria. Research has been ongoing for some time to develop appropriate indicators to evaluate the physical design of communities. However, only recently have these indicators been applied to specific developments. The main purpose of this study is to critically assess the effectiveness of sustainability indicators relating to economics, environmental responsiveness and sense of community. The secondary goal is to compare and contrast the developments themselves in relation to the indicators. The results of the indicator analysis revealed that not all indicators are relevant and most lack readily available data to provide a suitable measurement. Comparison of the communities using the sustainability indicators resulted in minimal differences between the conventional and alternative development, as they might relate to sustainability. Further elaboration and implications of these results are discussed as well as suggested directions for future study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207