MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W990835479

Kingsway and Knight Neighbourhood Centre Housing Area Plan

2014· article· en· W990835479 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shelley McGuire

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnightNeighbourhood (mathematics)Plan (archaeology)GeographyMathematicsArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attempts to densify single-family neighbourhoods are often resisted by local property owners and seen to be politically challenging. Most land use policies intended to bring about intensification of existing single-family areas in Vancouver have either met with widespread resistance from neighbourhoods, or not been implemented at all. On the east side of Vancouver, the Kingsway and Knight Neighbourhood Centre Housing Area Plan (“the K&K Plan”) resulted in new zoning to introduce new forms of ground-oriented housing intended to expand housing diversity, allowing people to stay within their community as their housing needs change over time. These changes were brought in with little community resistance and even a degree of neighbourhood support. This research project investigates the K&K Plan using development permit and census data to determine if the Plan has achieved its goals of producing a diversity of housing types that are suitable for families with children and seniors. Examination of development permit data reveals that, although the pace of development within the neighbourhood centre is only slightly greater than an adjacent single-family area, the resultant new developments provide a greater variety of housing types and increased density in an area close to transit and shopping. Further, the new housing types are generally well integrated into the existing neighbourhood in terms of their scale and design that is compatible with existing single-family housing; allowing the area to intensify and redevelop in dispersed and more organic way over time. Census data analysis suggests that there are more small children and younger adults in the study area compared to an adjacent single-family comparison area. Although this variation could suggest that the new housing types have resulted in more families with younger children, the research is not conclusive and this demographic change could be the result of other factors. The number of seniors living in the area was not greater compared to the adjacent single-family area. This analysis could be repeated in the future to examine this and other demographic data to evaluate potential effects of additional development over time within the neighbourhood.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)Same topicUrbanization and City PlanningFrench-language works237,207