MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124137879 · doi:10.37190/arc250410

Greenery as a factor shaping urban planning: the case of selected areas in Montreal

2025· article· en· W7124137879 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aneta Biała

Bibliographic record

VenueArchitectus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationUrbanizationUrban planningContext (archaeology)Urban parkElement (criminal law)Urban densityPublic spacePublic transport

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In today’s dynamic urban context, where cities play a crucial role in shaping the quality of life for residents, the role of greenery as a determinant of public space has become a significant issue. This article focuses on analyzing the impact of greenery on shaping the urban fabric using Montreal as a case study, with particular emphasis on Mount Royal as a key element influencing spatial planning and city development. The author explores various aspects of this issue, including historical and cultural contexts, as well as practical implications. The genesis and development of the city are presented, along with the role that Mount Royal has played in the urbanization process. The analysis also encompasses urban planning strategies that focus on preserving and enhancing green spaces, such as parks and recreational areas, as well as sustainable city development. By delving into the various aspects of greenery presence in Montreal, including urban planning, park distribution, and social initiatives related to green spaces, this article aims to understand the complexity of the relationship between greenery and the shaping of public spaces in the context of this Canadian city. The analysis sheds light on existing challenges related to maintaining and developing green areas, while also highlighting the benefits of effectively utilizing greenery as a key element of urban planning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchitectusSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207