MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082160942 · doi:10.1068/b12964

How to Improve the Social Utility Value of Geographic Information Systems for French Local Governments? A Delphi Study

2003· article· en· W2082160942 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphane Roche, Karine Sureau, Claude Caron

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning B Planning and Design · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodContext (archaeology)Value (mathematics)DelphiQualitative propertyPublic relationsPhenomenonRegional scienceBusinessPolitical scienceComputer scienceSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, geographic information technologies (GITs) stand out as the unavoidable answers to the French local governments' new stakes. Yet, an important discrepancy has been noticed between the utility levels (in the qualitative sense) and the theoretical intrinsic potential of these technologies. The social utility value of GIT seems quite low compared with the quantitative level at which they are diffused. The authors focus on the ‘determination of value’, by considering the obstacles to the development of a spatial data infrastructure in the French context. From the results of a Delphi study, the authors bring to the fore the fact that the institutional and organisational barriers 0ack of a clear policy in matters of access and dissemination; cost of public data; absence of fully operational norms and standards; failure to raise the awareness of the potential users as a whole; etc) more than technical difficulties, are the prime causes of this phenomenon. Through this analysis, the authors emphasise the need to organise a French national spatial data infrastructure, strongly linked with most of the local initiatives developed by the local governments.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning B Planning and DesignSame topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207