Bibliographic record
Abstract
came into effect on April 1, 2004. Toronto Public Health led the implementation of the bylaw, frequently collaborating with Parks, Forestry and Recreation and Toronto Water. Toronto’s bylaw succeeded in reducing pesticide use and encouraging residents and companies to adopt more sustainable lawn and garden care approaches. In 2007, almost 60 per cent fewer Toronto households reported any use of pesticides on their lawns, as compared with 2003. Furthermore, about two-thirds of homeowners report that they or their lawn care companies are using lower-risk pesticides and/or more natural alternatives, which is a higher proportion than before the bylaw was in place. An estimated 154 municipalities in seven provinces – including 35 in Ontario – have passed bylaws to restrict pesticide use to protect health and the environment. This municipal leadership has prompted province-wide restrictions on the use and sale of pesticides, first in Quebec and now in Ontario. On April 22, 2009, Ontario Regulation 63/09 came into effect, restricting the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides across the province. The new regulation replaces municipal bylaws in Ontario, therefore Toronto’s Pesticide Bylaw is no longer in effect.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.397 | 0.194 |
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".