Negotiation characteristics in brownfield redevelopment projects
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brownfield areas are contaminated lands that lie unused and unproductive. Because of the serious economic, social, political, and environmental damages that brownfield problems can cause to society, governments are focusing their attentions on the redevelopment of these contaminated sites. However, the excess costs of reconstruction projects over their benefits often stall the initiation of projects. Moreover, brownfield projects involve several uncertainties that seriously contribute to the challenges of brownfield redevelopment, such as uncertainty about the extent of contamination and the uncertainty in cleanup costs. To overcome these challenges, negotiation among the involved parties (government, owner, purchaser, and their stakeholders) is one of the most efficient tactics to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution and, as such, saves an enormous amount of time, cost, and resources. This paper aims at discussing the negotiation process associated with remediation and redevelopment of brownfield projects. Timing, type of contaminate, extent of contaminate, zoning, offsite impact, and the number of players are some of the most important factors affecting the study of brownfield negotiation and their ultimate redevelopment. The needs and interests of the various parties involved in a brownfield negotiation process are discussed. Initial steps towards the development of a decision support system for resolving brownfield conflicts through negotiation are then highlighted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it