MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015208119

Statement by Dr. Robert C. Hoover, Chairman of the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society (PALS) concerning Second Phase of Ontario Municipal Board Hearings on the Niagara Foodlands

2016· other· en· W7015208119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatement (logic)AgriculturePhase (matter)Environmental impact statementGovernment (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On February 16th 1977, the Government of Ontario informed the Niagara Regional Council that it had included an ex :cessive amount of Niagara's unique fruit, grape and vegetable producing land in future urban areas boundaries.The Government thereupon ordered the fixing of new urban areas boundar ies which would remove 3000 acres, including just under 2000 acres of prime food-producing land, from urban development.It subsequently permitted this decision to be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.The hearings star ting later this morning deal with appeals against the Government's decision.At stake are 63 referral areas of land totalling approximately 4500 acres.The Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society (PALS) is asking the OMB further to reduce the urban development boundaries by approximately 1900 acres in the 15 referral areas submitted by PALS.The other 48 referral areas have been submitted to the OMB by developers and land speculators.If approved for inclusion in the urban area, these -more-

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1510.058

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)French-language works237,207