MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1791488657 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511511400.003

Introduction

2006· book-chapter· en· W1791488657 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie J. Chalifour, Patricia Kameri‐Mbote, Lin Heng Lye, John R. Nolon, C. O. Okidi

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As human populations grow and land and natural resources come under greater pressure, land use planning has been an increasingly important subject of policy discussion at the national level. Governments, communities, and indeed all stakeholders are being forced to recognize the importance of not only rationalizing the use to which land is put, but even more importantly ensuring that land and resources are stewarded ecologically for future generations. Rooted in the inherently logical yet incredibly complex notion of sustainable development, intelligent land use and stewardship policies are being implemented in different regions of the world. The progress, however, is far too slow to bridge the gap between current development patterns and existing resources effectively. For example, urban growth continues unabated, while cities are unable to provide basic levels of sanitation, employment, health, and education for current residents. This book is an attempt to survey the global experience to date in implementing land use policies that move us further along the sustainable development continuum. Its chapters include diagnoses of the challenges of implementing sustainable land use policies that appear in different parts of the world. These chapters reveal that some problems are common to all jurisdictions, while others appear unique to particular regions. The book also includes chapters documenting new and emerging approaches such as reforms to property rights regimes and environmental laws. Other chapters offer comparisons of approaches in different jurisdictions that can present insights that might not be apparent from a single-jurisdiction analysis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3780.219

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.158
Teacher spread0.149 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207