Integrated Community Sustainability Planning: A Comparative Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Canadian municipalities are partaking in integrated community sustainability (ICS) planning. ICS planning involves an inter-departmental, coordinated approach using various plans, partnerships, and public participation processes in order to achieve sustainability goals at the municipal level. However, the literature is weak regarding ICS planning implementation in mid-sized (population 50,000 – 500,000) Canadian municipalities. This report examines the facilitators and barriers of ICS implementation of two mid-sized municipalities; Kingston and Markham, using a comparative case study. An analytical framework consisting of 11 themes for implementation was developed from the literature. The framework was then used to analyze the data gathered from municipal policy documents, municipal committee meeting minutes, and semi-structured interviews with key municipal staff. Kingston uses an integrated community sustainability plan (ICSP) and emphasizes partnerships and internal staff education. Markham also uses an ICSP, but emphasizes embedding sustainability principles into their OP. All 11 themes in the analytical framework were addressed to some extent by each municipality in order to make ICS planning effective. Each technique has its benefits and drawbacks, such as funding and communication problems with Kingston’s approach, and pressure to develop along with other political pressures in Markham.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".