MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W978396053

Sustainability in Toronto : a Personal Rapid Transit System and a Community Development Plan for Cherry Beach

2009· article· en· W978396053 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcus Ekström, Maria Jellbin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownSustainabilityPlan (archaeology)Port (circuit theory)Diversity (politics)Environmental planningUrban planningGeographyBusinessTransport engineeringSociologyEngineeringCivil engineeringArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between October 2007 and January 2008 we got the chance to live in Toronto, the most diverse city in the world. Our choice of study has been to explore how sustainabile city planning can be dealt with in a new community of the Central Waterfront of Toronto. The themes presented by us are a new transportation system to decrease our oil-dependency and how to weave environmental and social sustainability together. Focus has been on a new transit system in the form of a Personal Rapid Transit System, which is simplified a system of loops of guideways with small pods that takes you from A to B without stops on the way. Ideas of PRT was introduced in the 60s, and is by its forespokers quick, environmentally friendly, reliable, convenient and cheap. It takes on the challenge to attract people who rather take the car in everyday life. A PRT system between Toronto Downtown and Port Land area as a way to decrease barriers and connecting new and existing built environment. Further, the Swedish model of Hammarby Sjostad, has attracted city planners from all over the world, among them Canadians working with the transformation of the Central Waterfront into becoming new mixed communities. The Hammarby sjostad model is a great example of new urbanism with focus on the environmental part of the sustainability concept. But what can be seen as missing is diversity. Diversity is a key word in Toronto with a couple of well visited neighbourhoods, Kensington Market and the Islands that can be seen as everyday urbanism areas. Still newly built areas at the Central Waterfront were missing these qualities. This led to a focus of what benefits and problems that can occur in weaving environmental and social sustainability together, using ideas of both new urbanism and everyday urbanism in building a new community. This thesis is the result of our ideas of sustainable city planning and presents a planning proposal for Cherry beach at the Waterfront of Toronto.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→