Beneath the smart city: dichotomy between sustainability and competitiveness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The smart city is a new concept that has received a lot of attention as a means for enhancing city performance and quality of life. However, together with the growing interest in the concept of the smart city, cities are often pursuing other goals that may be in conflict with the characteristics of a smart city. For example, sustainability is an established goal of future urban development everywhere. Meanwhile, the promotion of economy development is often the major driver of smart city initiatives, but a high degree of economic competitiveness is only one of the components of a smart city. Moreover, sustainability and economic competitiveness have few elements in common. Which urban aspects should hence be promoted to conjugate the different goals? This paper compares the indicators used in rating systems for a smart city, a sustainable city, and a competitive city to figure out what these concepts seek to achieve and where they complement and contrast. The scope is to highlight aspects that should be promoted in cities which aim to move towards these different goals at the same time.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it