MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989455559 · doi:10.1145/2479724.2479738

geoSmartCity

2013· article· en· W1989455559 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentICTSKey (lock)GeomaticsSmart cityComputer scienceKnowledge managementInformation and Communications TechnologySustainabilityData scienceProcess managementBusinessWorld Wide WebInternet of ThingsGeographyComputer securitySoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) revolutionize the ways different urban actors communicate and interact. Geographic information technologies are of key importance too for the deployment and implementation of ICTs in the Smart City, because of the central role they may play as decision-making support tools. Indeed, they give quick access to different layers of information that may be combined and integrated to facilitate analysis of a situation and make the best decisions. However, such a central role is rarely acknowledged. In this paper, we will tackle the transversal involvement of geomatics in a Smart City. We propose also to define the extent of the concept of Smart Cities and some of the distinctive features that it should display to support its sustainability.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0380.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.270 · 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