Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report recommends approval of the demolition of the two storey single family residential structure at 106 Wychwood Park (Attachment No.1) on the east side of the Park. In conjunction with the demolition request, the project would construct two new residential structures on the site at 106 Wychwood Park (one structure at the “lot of record ” adjacent to 106 Wychwood). The property at 106 Wychwood Park is within the Wychwood Park Heritage Conservation District and the proposal meets the intent of the District Plan. Although the Wychwood Park District Plan recommends that no demolitions should be permitted in the Park, the existing structure does not contribute to the character and importance of the district. In general, the period of greatest significance is defined within the guidelines as between the years 1905 and 1917, which represent the period in which development in the district was based upon the Canadian interpretation of the English Arts and Crafts movement. Houses constructed in the 1920s and 1930s are considered to be less important, but also may contribute to the district. The subject property has been identified as constructed between 1950 and 1962 and therefore is non-contributing within the district in terms of built form. It is also identified as being incompatible with its neighbours.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.609 | 0.484 |
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".