Hell with the future, let's get on with the past" : rivalry and revitalization in the Lakehead's central business districts, 1947-1980 / by John A. MacPhail.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
?Would you tell me please, which way I ought to go from here?? asked Alice. \n?That depends a great deal on where you want to get to,? said the cat. \nLewis Carroll?s, Alice in Wonderland, 1865. \nVictoriaville Centre was constructed under the auspices of Ontario?s Downtown \nRevitalization Program (1976).^ Located in the former central business district (CBD) of \nFort William, Ontario, the centre spanned a major artery of the core area, enclosing in \nclimate-controlled comfort a previously bustling shopping area and street. Fort William?s \nCBD, prior to amalgamation with Port Arthur in 1970; and after, experienced a \nremarkable diffusion of its residential, commercial, and institutional components to the \nperiphery of the urban area, and later, the intercity area. The latter area is a tract of \nland that separated the two-Lakehead communities of Fort William and Port Arthur. Its \nsignificance in post-amalgamation Thunder Bay would be great. \nPlanning policy after the establishment of Thunder Bay was contentious. Urban \nrenewal in the new Port Arthur ward finished in 1974, while revitalization of the Fort \nWilliam ward would not break ground until 1978. Both projects were controversial at the \ntime and presented problems that linger still. The forced amalgamation of the Lakehead \ncommunities no doubt contributed to the debate over CBD renewal in Thunder Bay?s \ntwo core areas. Both renewal projects, however, were different in their orientation, and \nas such, elicited similar and dissimilar arguments for and against their implementation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".