USING LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY AND SPATIAL STATISTICS TO EXAMINE THE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED REMOVALS TO NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM AND THE AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM OF ONTARIO’S GREENBELT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2022 proposed removals from the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Southern Ontario’s Greenbelt would have resulted in negative impacts including, reductions to the size and functionality of the Agricultural System and Natural Heritage System, which are components of protected Greenbelt area. Several removal sites were located either on or in close proximity to corridor areas of the NHS, reducing connectivity and negatively impacting the surrounding ecological area. The removal of Agricultural land primarily consisted of corn and soybeans, as well as large removals of woodland, wetland, and shrubland class areas. The removal sites on local Agricultural composition and configuration were potentially disruptive to local agricultural land and functions. Recent policy revisions dictate no that land area should be removed from Greenbelt designation. The socioeconomic pressures for urban development are increasing in response to growing population and urban sprawl, therefore, to protect the integrity of the environment and agricultural system, integrated policies that encompass both environmental protection and development needs are required. Future protection of Ontario’s Greenbelt will be dictated by the provincial government; therefore, protection of NHS and Agricultural land via policy regulation is contingent on political will.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".