Bibliographic record
Abstract
These applications were submitted on February 2, 2009 and are subject to the new provisions of the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006. The applications propose a phased redevelopment of this site as a Provincial Campus for a variety of uses including a hospital, a forensics laboratory, coroner’s complex and government offices as shown on “Attachment 1: Concept Plan”. This report provides preliminary information on the above-noted applications and seeks Community Council's directions on further processing of the applications and on the community consultation process. The City is requesting that required technical studies and information be provided, and then will organize a consultation meeting to obtain input from the community. A date for a community meeting will be determined in consultation with the Ward 9 Councillor. RECOMMENDATIONS The City Planning Division recommends that: 1. Staff be directed to schedule a community consultation meeting together with the Ward Councillor after the applicant has submitted the required technical studies and information. 2. Notice for the community consultation meeting be given to landowners and residents within 120 metres of the site. 3. Notice for the public meeting under the Planning Act be given according to the regulations of the Planning Act.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.735 | 0.595 |
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".