Private Property Owners and the Remaking of Brownfields
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
Because owners of brownfield sites are primarily interested in avoiding liability, they are rarely players in reusing planning of their properties. However, in some cases, private companies have taken a leadership role in reuse planning for their moribund sites. This article explores these unique examples of corporate responsibility through surveys of federal and state brownfields officials in the United States and in-depth case studies of reuse projects in three U.S. cities. The findings suggest that firms appear to be motivated for promoting the reuse of their brownfields in order to maintain a reputation in their community, establish an economic precedent for successful reuse, maintain control over potential future environmental liabilities, and as a manifestation of corporate social responsibility. Implication for public works managers and planners include a need to leverage third party liability rules to encourage greater responsibility and leadership by firms in the reuse of their contaminated sites.
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 | 0.000 | 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