MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W145354263

Coalition for a Livable Future: A Regional Approach to Addressing Equity in a 21st Century Metropolitan Landscape

2010· article· en· W145354263 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shannon C. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueSIT Digital Collections (SIT Graduate Institute) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommunity and Sustainable Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaEquity (law)Regional scienceGeographyEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 21st Century has been described as the urban century. Since 2008, over half of the world's population lives in urban areas. Urban population growth and settlement concentration is expected to continue expanding during this century. In the United States, approximately 84% of the population resides in one of 366 Metropolitan regions. The proliferation of this urban 'city of cities' or 'city-region' model dramatically influences how resources are shared, distributed, and protected across neighborhood, county, urban, and rural boundaries within the region. Cities are becoming increasingly socio-culturally diverse and diffuse, as well as economically and environmentally interconnected. Urban regions that are able to preserve and maximize their shared natural, economic, social, and cultural capital are the cities that will thrive in the 21st century. Current metropolitan policies and planning practices impede the development of these diverse forms of capital due to fragmented municipal collaboration and an uneven distribution of fiscal, infrastructural, and socio-cultural resources A growing movement composed of diverse stakeholders is building in the United States for regional equity as related to sustainability. The primary tenets of regional equity are: increased regional collaboration, broad inclusiveness in decision-making processes, and equitable asset sharing between neighborhoods, cities, and counties. Equity as related to sustainability has been inadequately addressed, but is imperative for the realization of economic or environmental sustainability. This new movement toward equity demonstrates a dramatic divergence from the modernist developmental configuration that has shaped urban centers since the late 19th century. It is grounded in a pluralistic collective vision of resource sharing and investment, decentralized governance, systems-based planning, and participatory democracy. This movement and an examination of the role of equity in sustainable development is explored through a case study of a policy-advocacy campaign led by a broad-based Coalition in Portland, Oregon. This group of over 100 diverse community groups, public agencies, and community members created a Regional Equity Atlas Campaign to address how the burdens and benefits of development are dispersed across the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan landscape. Their campaign addresses equity through three phases: research, education/outreach, and collaborative action. Their participatory, place-based, approach has created the scaffolding necessary to create the broad ownership and accountability needed for a development paradigm shift of sharing benefits and burdens of growth. While current development of neighborhood, city, county, and regional government plans indicate a prioritization of equity issues in the region, it is unclear how these will be actively achieved in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan landscape. Thus, even though fiscal, spatial, and socio-cultural equity have been identified as desirable and important goals for the development of the region, their operationalization has thus far been uneven. However, with the emergence of the regional equity movement and the recent initiation of the Regional Equity Atlas Campaign, positive results have been given a better chance of emerging soon.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.012
Scholarly communication0.0140.013
Open science0.0040.031
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIT Digital Collections (SIT Graduate Institute)Same topicCommunity and Sustainable DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207