Conflicting Identities of Garrison Creek
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toronto’s Garrison Creek has gained a near mythical quality in both the minds and the plans of the city’s people. In the century since its burial and integration into the combined sewer network, there has been a growing tension between the creek’s identity as an ecological entity, and its identity as a sewer. This research explores these two faces of the Garrison, the creek and the sewer in turn, and explores how different groups have come to relate to the creek in various ways. Due to these two identities, Garrison Creek exemplifies a false division in how we have come to value urban water by celebrating water on the landscape and simultaneously dismissing the water that flows through our pipes. Garrison Creek reminds us that these systems are the same. This division limits our ability to think comprehensively about urban water and recognize the complexity of these systems that we interact with daily. In the past 20 years, several plans and projects have made the creek a key element and have attempted to “bring it back” in ways both physical and symbolic. Through a critical exploration of these plans and projects through the lens of urban political ecology, this research attempts to gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of our relationship these urban watersheds. This research provides a fine-grain exploration of the city’s relationship to its buried water and the evolution of these relationships over time. While based in the history of this place, this research also attempts to look forward to understand how our relationship to urban water can be improved in the face of both increased urban flooding and a need for reconciliation in 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".