Evaluating local sustainability: planning in northern british columbia, canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local governments in British Columbia have been presented with an opportunity to become more sustainable through the development of Integrated Community Sustainability Plans (ICSPs).These are broad overarching documents aimed at guiding all community decision making towards environment, social, and economic sustainability.This article explores these planning efforts, focusing on the development of the City of Prince George ICSP.Ten key dimensions for sustainable city development developed by Jeffrey Kenworthy are used as evaluative criteria to explore the effectiveness of the Prince George ICSP in promoting the complex topic of sustainability to residents and decision makers.An 11th criterion, related to climate change, is also added to Kenworthy's dimensions.The results of this evaluative research show positive activities in moving towards mixed-use and compact development; integrating natural elements into the urban landscape; developing a communication plan which engages and educates the public; and considering local and regional climate change impacts.Attention needs to be focused towards improving multimodal transportation development and creating a more high-quality public realm.Using Kenworthy's dimensions to evaluate the plans has proven to be a worthwhile exercise revealing sustainability strengths and weaknesses.As sustainability planning is relatively new in northern cities and towns, this assessment will help other northern and rural communities to guide their own plans.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".