Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to advise on two separate requests concerning reverse slope driveways. One request from Council directs a report to this Committee. The other is from North York Community Council to amend the North York zoning bylaw. A further request involves amending the definition of boarding and lodging house. Both these matters are of city-wide concern being addressed in the city-wide zoning bylaw that is now being prepared. To amend one zoning bylaw and not all the current zoning bylaws that share the issue jeopardizes the City’s ability to defend such an amendment at the Ontario Municipal Board. It will give appellants a convenient argument of inconsistent treatment of similar properties across the City. In addition, appellants will have another opportunity to appeal as each successive existing zoning bylaw is amended. Further, such action will take away staff resources needed to complete the city-wide zoning bylaw work. Amending the existing zoning bylaws is time-consuming work owing to the fact that there are 43 of them. In addition, should there be an appeal of any one of them, more staff resources will be required to defend the appeals. The early part of 2009 is the target date for producing the draft city-wide bylaw for public consultation. In the interim, steps will be taken to highlight the basement flooding implications of reverse slope driveways for Committee of Adjustment panel members in their consideration of relevant variance applications.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.347 | 0.192 |
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".