{"id":"W2114948308","doi":"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.11.006","title":"Nature, place and the creative class: Three Canadian case studies","year":2010,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Landscape and Urban Planning","topic":"Land Use and Ecosystem Services","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":31,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"ca_institutions":"Royal Roads University","funders":"Canada Research Chairs","keywords":"Creativity; Diversity (politics); Natural (archaeology); Ecology; Landscape architecture; Creative class; Class (philosophy); Geography; Natural landscape; Mosaic; Ecological niche; Cultural landscape; Sociology; Economic geography; Anthropology; Epistemology; Biology; Habitat; Archaeology; Psychology; Social psychology","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0002479741,0.000108812,0.0001453362,0.00002314286,0.0004296482,0.00006868393,0.00007902578,0.00009047744,0.000138245],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00002383079,0.0000580032,0.00001571539,0.00006727539,0.0000630826,0.0001339822,0.00007819518,0.0002634394,0.00001843495],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.000009189852,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00000796832,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.009486995,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3034314,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9994169,0.00002212955,0.00009008113,0.000187026,0.00007761613,0.0002061751],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9995542,0.0001546298,0.0000374469,0.0001224181,0.000005411846,0.0001259006],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00003358762,0.000002949778,0.9851681,0.00001337489,0.0000417167,0.0003716108,0.003785788,0.00002145194,0.00001252766,0.000233186,0.0101735,0.0001422324],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.008041626,0.0002571632,0.6303218,0.0002646717,0.0004274651,0.009503709,0.02320084,0.04675334,0.0001870287,0.003428804,0.2760828,0.001530726],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9798827,0.002480275,6.766107e-7,0.0005208842,0.0001333041,0.0001102623,0.00001103589,0.00001532761,0.0168456],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9990999,0.00005515692,0.00003248667,0.0005239963,0.0001009518,0.00001018375,0.000003794953,0.000006313434,0.0001672192],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.3548463,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9971089,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.008371969213661273,"score_gpt":0.2280265619287496,"score_spread":0.2196545927150884,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}