MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037540744

The Economies of Space Making a Case for Sustainable Urban Development

2019· dissertation· en· W7037540744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityCorporationReal estateIncentiveSustainable developmentStakeholderUrban planningSpace (punctuation)Real estate development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across disciplines, there has been a fascination with the concept of sustainability and it continues to pervade academic and professional discussions and discourses.In this research project, I study a real estate project in the hot property market of Toronto that is socially, environmental and economically sustainable.Based on this research, I came up with conclusions and strategies that could incentivize such developments.This research project is composed of three parts.In part one, I defined sustainability by looking at it through three lenses: academia (through a literature review), practice (through four industry standards that administer sustainability and finally policy (through summarizing the policy documents in Ontario).These definitions set the groundwork for part two of this project where I took the Alexandra Park revitalization project as a case study.Based on the definitions of part one, I evaluated the sustainability goals of the project and conducted a stakeholder dialogue with key informants from Tridel, Toronto Community Housing Corporation and Urban Strategies to determine the challenges, risk, incentives and prospects of sustainable development.The research of part one and part two were then synthesized in part three where four conclusions and five strategies are proposed to make sustainable development more feasible,

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207