MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979906780 · doi:10.1287/inte.1110.0544

Designing New Electoral Districts for the City of Edmonton

2011· article· en· W1979906780 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedistrictingContiguityPlan (archaeology)HeuristicOperations researchPopulationComputer scienceProcess (computing)Transport engineeringTabu searchEngineeringGeographyLegislatureSociologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every few years, the city of Edmonton, Canada must review and evaluate changes to its electoral district boundaries. The review process that was completed in 2009 resulted in modifying the district plan from a six-ward system with two council members in each to a single-member 12-ward system. The authors of this paper designed the redistricting plan. This paper describes the algorithm we applied to solve the problem and the decision support system we used. The algorithm is based on a multicriteria mathematical model, which is solved by a tabu search heuristic embedded within a geographic information system (GIS)-based decision support system. The resulting district plan meets districting criteria, including population balance, contiguity, compactness, respect for natural boundaries, growth areas, and integrity of communities of interest. This plan was formally approved as a city bylaw and used in the municipal elections in 2010.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.208 · 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