Urbanization and the carbon cycle: Contributions from social science
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
Abstract This paper outlines the contributions of social science to the study of interactions between urbanization patterns and processes and the carbon cycle, and identifies gaps in knowledge and priority areas for future social scientific research contributions. While previously studied as a unidimensional process, we conceptualize urbanization as a multidimensional, social and biophysical process driven by continuous changes across space and time in various subsystems including biophysical, built environment, and socio‐institutional (e.g., economic, political, demographic, behavioral, and sociological). We review research trends and findings focused on the socio‐institutional subsystem of the urbanization process, and particularly the dynamics, relationships, and predictions relevant to energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Our findings suggest that a multidimensional perspective of urbanization facilitates a wider spectrum of research relevant to carbon cycle dynamics, even within the socio‐institutional subsystem. However, there is little consensus around the details and mechanisms underlying the relationship between urban socio‐institutional subsystems and the carbon cycle. We argue that progress in understanding the relationship between urbanization and the carbon cycle may be achieved if social scientists work collaboratively with each other as well as with scientists from other disciplines. From this review, we identify research priorities where collaborative social scientific efforts are necessary in conjunction with other disciplinary approaches to generate a more complete understanding of urbanization as a process and its relationship to the carbon cycle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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