MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085951103 · doi:10.1080/13574800801965643

Hippodamus Rides to Radburn: A New Model for the 21st Century

2008· article· en· W2085951103 on OpenAlexaff
Fanis Grammenos, Barry Craig, DOUGLAS POLLARD, CARLA GUERRERA

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban Design · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe RenaissanceContext (archaeology)Human settlementModularity (biology)Automotive industryOrder (exchange)Shock (circulatory)GridEngineeringArchitectural engineeringEconomyHistoryBusinessGeographyEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cities and towns in the Americas and Europe bear the mark of what became known as the innovation of Hippodamus of Miletus. During the 24 centuries since its introduction, founders of new settlements readily applied the Hippodamian grid. However, its enduring prominence declined at the start of the 20th century when alternatives, intended to accommodate the new motor vehicles, were explored. While cities still struggle to absorb the shock of mechanized transportation, the Hippodamian concept is experiencing a renaissance. It gives cities clear structure, comprehensible order, modularity and expandability, among other qualities. Moreover, it is hypothesized that since current mobility devices have all but eclipsed the natural mode of travel—on foot—a return to the grid could reinstate walking as a viable option. It is clearly time for a fundamental re-evaluation of the Hippodamian idea in the context of the dominant automotive mobility and of the quest for walking as an alternative. This paper examines Hippodamus' concept in its historical context and attempts to reformulate it in a contemporary planning framework that encourages walking.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Urban DesignSame topicUrban Design and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207