MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097868959

Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division

2013· article· en· W7097868959 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZoningSustainable developmentPlannerPlan (archaeology)Consistency (knowledge bases)SustainabilityDevelopment planUrban planning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report encompasses the results of a comprehensive technical review and update of the Toronto Green Standard (TGS) adopted by City Council in December 2009. The TGS is a two-tier set of environmental performance measures that facilitates sustainable new development in Toronto. The revised and updated TGS reflects improvements resulting from direct experiences in applying the Green Standard to new development and the incorporation of new City guidelines, policy or regulations that came into effect since implementation began in 2010. Representatives of City Divisions and development industry stakeholders have participated in the review of each section of the TGS. Highlights of the new version of the TGS include: Improved Tier 1 performance measures to address implementation challenges. Consistency with the City-wide Zoning By-law and the City-wide Site Plan Control By-law. Incorporation of new performance measures supporting the latest City guideline documents. Expanded Tier 2 voluntary package, aligned with LEED ® Canada for New Construction and Waterfront Toronto's Mandatory Green Building Requirements. It is recommended that the proposed, updated TGS be adopted and implemented for all new development applications commencing January 1, 2014. Further reports on sustainable energy targets for new development and on the feasibility of applying a Tier 2 policy for new City-owned facilities in 2014 are recommended. The next review to the TGS will commence in 2017.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207