Towards sustainable cities East Asian, North American and European perspectives on managing urban regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contents: Part I: Urban Sustainability Questions: Towards sustainable cities, AndrA(c) Sorensen, Peter J. Marcotullio and Jill Grant Sustainable urbanism in historical perspective, Jill Grant Why the Asian urbanization experience should make us think differently about planning approaches, Peter J. Marcotullio. Part II: Planning Strategies for More Sustainable Cities in North America and Europe: An inquiry into the promise and prospects of smart growth, Gerrit-Jan Knaap Varieties of US growth management: lessons from New York and San Francisco, Rolf Pendall Cross-border impacts of growth management regime: Portland, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington, Chang-Hee Christine Bae Developing and employing sustainability indicators as a principal strategy in planning: experiences in the Puget sound urban region of Washington State, Donald Miller Sustainable Portland? A critique, and the Los Angeles counterpoint, Harry W. Richardson and Peter Gordon Canada's experience in planning for sustainable development, Jill Grant Coping with the growing complexity of our physical environment: the search for new planning tools in the Netherlands, Gert de Roo Central Belgium, a 'Park City'? A policy based on de-concentrated clustering, Jef Van den Broeck. Part III: Planning Strategies for More Sustainable Cities in Japan and Korea: Major issues of land management for sustainable urban regions in Japan, AndrA(c) Sorensen Empowerment in the Japanese planning context, Hideki Koizumi Green structure plan for a sustainable urban-rural relationship in Japan, Mikiko Ishikawa Sustainable community improvement in Japan: infill redevelopment where everyone can continue to live, Shigeru Satoh Reform of planning controls for an urban-rural continuum in Korea, Sang-Chuel Choe Inner-city growth management problem in Seoul: residential rebuilding boom and planning response, Kwang-Joong Kim Urban growth management and housing supply in the capital region of South Korea, Sang-Dae Lee. Part IV: Conclusions: Towards land management policies for more sustainable cities, Jill Grant, Peter J. Marcotullio and AndrA(c) Sorensen.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".