MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077288183 · doi:10.1068/a39267

Using the Delphi Technique in Normative Planning Research: Methodological Design Considerations

2008· article· en· W2077288183 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

VenueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and Space · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Delphi methodDelphiNormativeMetropolitan areaManagement scienceContext (archaeology)Computer scienceProcess managementKnowledge managementBusinessPolitical scienceEngineeringGeographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worldwide, metropolitan areas continue to be confronted by a growing number of increasingly difficult planning issues. It is our experience that planning practitioners have not taken full advantage of what the Delphi technique can contribute to making informed choices in a wide variety of decision and policy environments. The objectives of this paper are to describe and explain the research design that supported a real-world application of the Delphi technique in an urban, regional, and ecosystem-based planning context, as well as to demonstrate how this model has been or can be adapted to serve a variety of planning research or application tasks.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.746
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.230 · 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