There are no financial implications. BACKGROUND
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to advise Scarborough Community Council that City Planning staff are initiating a study of the area known as the McCowan Precinct in the Scarborough Centre. The intent of the McCowan Precinct Plan Study is to develop a “Precinct Plan ” for the McCowan area which would further articulate the policies of the Toronto Official Plan (including the Scarborough Centre Secondary Plan) and develop a framework to guide future growth and development of the McCowan Precinct. The McCowan Precinct Plan Study would be undertaken by City staff and engage area residents, landowners, business owners, Ward Councillor(s) and other City Divisions, who would form a "Working Group " to assist in the development of the precinct plan. The working group would meet approximately once a month for a period of 6 months. In addition to these meetings, the community consultation portion of the study would also consist of a workshop/charrette and 2 evening community meetings. The study would conclude with a final recommendations report which would include development and urban design principles, a conceptual master plan and implementation plan for the McCowan Precinct. The final staff report is targeted to be presented to Scarborough Community Council in the second quarter of 2012. Any Staff report for information – McCowan Precinct Plan Study 1proposed amendments to the official plan resulting from the study would be considered at a public meeting, under the Planning Act. At a later date, any proposed amendments to the zoning by-law to implement the findings of the McCowan Precinct Plan Study would be brought forward to Scarborough Community Council at a public meeting under the
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.536 | 0.255 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".