MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1530637751 · doi:10.14453/ltc.543

Taking 'land use' seriously: toward an ontology of municipal law

2005· article· en· W1530637751 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mercedes de la Rosa Valverde

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw/text/culture · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Contract Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntologyEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceLawBusinessLaw and economicsGeographySociologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Municipal and quasi-municipal authorities have regulated activities and persons by exercising control over access to and use of spaces and municipal regulations targeting spaces but acting on groups of persons are scrutinized in the US and Canada, by those concerned with the rights of dispossessed urban groups. Land use is specific to planning and at the local level, 'use' is an absolutely crucial legal technology whose effects are best understood if 'governing through use' is contrasted to 'governing through persons'.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.057
Scholarly communication0.0160.016
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations99
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaw/text/cultureSame topicEuropean and International Contract LawFrench-language works237,207