MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7002081449

From Marketing to Master Plan: An Environmental Sustainability Analysis of Toronto’s East Harbour EcoDistrict

2019· report· en· W7002081449 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2019
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityRedevelopmentContext (archaeology)UrbanizationSustainability organizationsBrownfieldSustainable developmentFlexibility (engineering)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to climate change and rampant urbanization in developing countries, increased attention needs to be paid to environmental sustainability concerns, helping to shape cities for the future. Instead of offering a “blueprint”, the EcoDistrict framework for sustainability recognizes that districts, neighbourhoods, and communities experience a range of differing circumstances and priorities, allowing for flexibility through the application of context specific indicators. East Harbour, a redevelopment east of Toronto’s downtown core, aims to apply this framework. This report seeks to explore the topic of EcoDistricts, determine the current environmentally sustainable programs and tools being used by existing EcoDistricts, and to recommend next steps that Toronto would need to consider when addressing the environmental sustainability of East Harbour.
\n
\nThis research explores in detail the programs and tools that current EcoDistricts are using to be environmentally sustainable. In doing so, a qualitative, mixed methods research approach was used. The research methods used include a literature and documents review to provide background on and context for researching the EcoDistrict approach, and a multi-case study design to examine how EcoDistricts have successfully implemented environmental sustainability programs and tools. The case study portion included an analysis of the following EcoDistricts: (1) High Falls EcoDistrict, Rochester, New York; (2) Seaholm EcoDistrict, Austin, Texas, and; (3) Lloyd EcoDistrict, Portland, Oregon. 
\n
\nThe research suggests that Toronto’s East Harbour EcoDistrict takes caution in terms of its marketing as it does not effectively differentiate between a vague idealism of the EcoDistrict model and the creation of an effective and applicable approach to environmental sustainability at the scale of a neighbourhood. This research has proposed three key considerations to minimize the issue of marketing and has presented ideas of how EcoDistricts can go beyond the idea of marketing sustainability that will hopefully spark a conversation that is necessary to determine how these next steps could benefit Toronto’s East Harbour EcoDistrict. The key considerations outlined by this research are: (1) the application of a comprehensive plan and roadmap; (2) the development of context specific indicators, and (3) the use of indicator monitoring and reporting.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicCorruption and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207