MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099147822

Recommended Governance and Fiscal Model for TDSB Pools

2010· article· en· W7099147822 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterimClosing (real estate)RevenueCorporationWork (physics)SummitChristian ministryTimelineFiscal year
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

the Toronto Lands Corporation (TLC), propose a long‐term sustainable solution for the continued operation of the Board’s pools. A total of 23 pools had been slated for closure in June 2008, with an additional 16 to follow in June 2009. After holding an open Aquatic Summit in May 2008, a transition plan was supported by the TDSB that would see the pools kept open for a year while a community based, long term strategy for the use of pools could be developed. As part of the transition plan: the TDSB agreed to transfer, on an interim basis, the operation of the 39 pools to the Toronto Lands Corporation (TLC); the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Health Promotion agreed to fund the operation of the pools for one year (that year was complete in June 2009); and the Aquatics Working Group (AWG) was created. In January 2010, David Crombie and the AWG delivered their final report to the TLC which indicated that local communities had succeeded in over doubling their pool permit revenues over the past year. The report recommended re‐opening additional pools, for a total of 32 of 39 pools remaining open and operational (note that with the closing of North Toronto, the total number of pools decreased from 32 to 31). The final report also recommended a 5‐year work

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.004

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior→French-language works237,207→