MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078642659 · doi:10.1080/13549839.2014.887060

Evaluating long-term urban resilience through an examination of the history of green spaces in Tokyo

2014· article· en· W2078642659 on OpenAlexaff
Yoichi KUMAGAI, Robert Gibson, Pierre Filion

Bibliographic record

VenueLocal Environment · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Psychological resilienceAdaptive capacityTerm (time)Resource (disambiguation)Urban resilienceUrban green spaceBusinessNatural resource economicsSpace (punctuation)PopulationResource depletionEnvironmental planningUrban planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEconomicsClimate changeSociologyEngineeringComputer scienceCivil engineeringPsychologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term urban resilience requires urban systems with the capacity to respond to change and disturbance and to enhance the conditions for lasting wellbeing. Over the past century Tokyo has demonstrated impressive resilience, especially a capacity to reorganise and rebuild in response to successive major disturbances. Throughout these recoveries, the city-region maintained a focus on re-establishing, improving and maintaining international competitiveness through industrial development. Green spaces in Tokyo provided a flexible, but gradually disappearing resource. Today, to meet the needs of its ageing and minimally expanding population for enhanced wellbeing, Tokyo requires active transition planning covering many intertwined factors, but the adaptive capacity provided by the green space resource is no longer available. The Tokyo case underscores the risk inherent in the depletion of non-renewable resources (in this instance, green space) to secure immediate recovery and accommodate growth and short-term resilience at the expense of long-term resilience.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLocal EnvironmentSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207