MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537518880 · doi:10.1002/2014ef000253

Positioning infrastructure and technologies for low‐carbon urbanization

2014· article· en· W1537518880 on OpenAlexaff
Mikhail Chester, Josh Sperling, Eleanor C. Stokes, Braden Allenby, Kara M. Kockelman, Christopher Kennedy, Lawrence A. Baker, James Keirstead, Chris Hendrickson

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth s Future · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Atmospheric Research
KeywordsUrbanizationGreenhouse gasInterdependenceFossil fuelBusinessNatural resource economicsElectricityEnvironmental planningEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEconomicsEconomic growthPolitical scienceEcologyWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The expected urbanization of the planet in the coming century coupled with aging infrastructure in developed regions, increasing complexity of man‐made systems, and pressing climate change impacts have created opportunities for reassessing the role of infrastructure and technologies in cities and how they contribute to greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions. Modern urbanization is predicated on complex, increasingly coupled infrastructure systems, and energy use continues to be largely met from fossil fuels. Until energy infrastructures evolve away from carbon‐based fuels, GHG emissions are critically tied to the urbanization process. Further complicating the challenge of decoupling urban growth from GHG emissions are lock‐in effects and interdependencies. This paper synthesizes state‐of‐the‐art thinking for transportation, fuels, buildings, water, electricity, and waste systems and finds that GHG emissions assessments tend to view these systems as static and isolated from social and institutional systems. Despite significant understanding of methods and technologies for reducing infrastructure‐related GHG emissions, physical, institutional, and cultural constraints continue to work against us, pointing to knowledge gaps that must be addressed. This paper identifies three challenge themes to improve our understanding of the role of infrastructure and technologies in urbanization processes and position these increasingly complex systems for low‐carbon growth. The challenges emphasize how we can reimagine the role of infrastructure in the future and how people, institutions, and ecological systems interface with infrastructure.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.001
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations44
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth s FutureSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207