MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1618128533

도시 수변공간과 지속가능한 개발

2009· article· ko· W1618128533 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
최정희, 김기연, 김기호

Bibliographic record

Venue대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban planningEnvironmental planningSustainable developmentUrbanismBalance of natureUrban sprawlHuman settlementGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental protectionCivil engineeringPolitical scienceEngineeringEcologyEnvironmental science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban waterfront could be noticed as a symbolic place realizing sustainable development which pursues the balance of preservation & development, because the very one of major issues of urban waterfront is the balance of preservation of ecological environment and supply of urban land. Just at the right time the new millennium begins, quite a few global cities redevelop urban waterfront to make a model of sustainable urban community in the 21st century. The purpose of this study is to investigate the main subject matter how to balance the opposite concept of ecological environment preservation and urban development in urban waterfront. Among the new millennium's urban waterfront (re)development projects, Greenwich Millenium Village(GMV) in London and Southeast False Creek(SEFC) in Vancouver were selected to cases, because they respectively represent Urban Village and New Urbanism, the theories and campaigns of community planning & design based on ESSD(Environmentally Sound & Sustainable Development). As a result, the cases have common themes; mixed-use development in land use, transit-oriented development in transportation, and restoration, preservation, expansion and connection of biotope in environment, and besides, social mix, sustainable energy, etc. And, both cases never construct new communities, damaging the existing ecological environment of urban waterfront. On the contrary, they first restored the polluted waterfront environment and later, permitted urban (re)development very limitedly to minimize environmental damage & environmental pollution. That's to say, they put environmental preservation first, and then meet the needs of urban functions & urban activities by creating compact, complex and intensive urban system. And also, there’s one other notable point. In both cases of GMV and SEFC, the main principal of urban waterfront (re)development is 'public benefit - publicness'. They understand very well that urban waterfront is very important ecological resource and public space of all citizens, and they make waterfront parks for all citizens, improve access to waterfront by walk, bicycle, bus, subway, etc, for anyone to access to waterfront easily & enjoy urban waterfront, and supply a lot of public rental houses as well as many types of condominiums, for a variety of people different with income, job, social level, life style. etc, to live together. Finally, the cases of GMV and SEFC show that they realize the environmentally sound and sustainable development, turning a polluted waterfront to a good urban place based on 'public benefit - publicness'.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.266 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계Same topicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207