MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999280729 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v3-n1-57-72

Capacity building program for urban regeneration: theory into practice

2008· article· en· W1999280729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Özlem Özçevik

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Planning and Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban regenerationRegeneration (biology)Environmental planningArchitectural engineeringBusinessEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the progress of urban regeneration policies with reference to the Turkish context and a capacity building project experienced in the city of Istanbul.Following the 1999 Marmara earthquake, the Zeytinburnu District in Istanbul was assigned as the 'pilot area for urban regeneration' according to the disaster preparedness policies of the Istanbul Earthquake Master Plan.Following this, the local municipality of Zeytinburnu was determined to demand knowledge and skills for urban regeneration practices.This paper focuses on local practices in comparison with some general trends: changes in local governance and urban regeneration, and the tendency to share out responsibilities through stakeholders via capacity building and physical, economic and legal arrangements, strategies developed with multi-stakeholders through sustainable urban regeneration, strategies for putting theory into practice for the implementation of built local knowledge.The aim of this paper is to reveal the outcomes on 'institutional and community capacity building' in Zeytinburnu as a prior municipality of Istanbul in the means of urban regeneration, and to open a discussion on these outcomes.The paper highlights the importance of capacity building in the disaster preparedness process through outcomes of the Matra REGIMA Project that is in progress in Zeytinburnu Municipality.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.025
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicUrban Planning and ValuationFrench-language works237,207