Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toronto is a city that operates at the scale of automobiles \nand subways. Its environments are many and varied— \nlayers of infrastructure, geography, and history create a \nheterogeneous mix of urban fabric. The Spadina Subway \nLine is one of the primary routes of navigating this mix. It \nextends from the heart of downtown northwest to the edge \nof Toronto and into the neighbouring City of Vaughan. With \nno single street to follow the Spadina Line winds through \na fragmentary collage. On the surface the pieces have little \nrelation to each other—a collection of urban fabrics forcibly \nconnected by the subway. \n \nThis thesis is a performance. It performs a walk, a transect, \nalong the above ground line of the subway. This walk \nbuilds off the previous generations of theoretical walkers— \nthe saunterers of Henry Thoreau, the flâneurs of Charles \nBaudelaire, the surrealists of André Breton, the Situationists \nof Guy Debord—and Lee Freidlander’s eye for the cluttered \ncity to synthesize the perspective of the transient observer. \nA solitary figure that seeks out urban forms and artifacts to \ndiscover the layers of intentionality, the coincidences and \ncontradictions that coalesce into the messy city—a city that \nis fragmentary, haphazard, uncurated. \n \nDocumentation of the walk is done through mapping and \nphotography. Mapping describe the lands of the Spadina \nLine holistically and create a picture of how the Line \ninteracts with the wider city. Photographs describe the \nexperience of the walk itself. This is an exploration of the \npresent, of singular moments—the moments of encounter \nbetween a transient observer and a new urban form—that \nimplies both history and future. Through act of walking and \ndocumentation—the moments and the maps—a narrative is \nfound within the fragments of the Spadina Subway Line. It \nis a narrative of competing visions and failed ideal cities—a \nnarrative of a great urban laboratory with decades of \nexperiments in urbanity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.198 | 0.048 |
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".