Smart Growth and Sustainable Development: Challenges, solutions and policy directions
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
In this paper, we focus on the issues related to development densities that \nemerged from our study of sprawl and development issues in three regions of British \nColumbia, Canada. We chose to focus on this aspect of the smart growth agenda \nbecause, while many of its other elements enjoy wide support across social interests, the \ngoal of achieving a higher density urban fabric is highly controversial. We proceeded by \ncollecting data on development densities and 13 indicators of potential benefits in 26 \nmunicipalities. The results suggest that the density of communities is associated with \nefficiencies in infrastructure and with reduced automobile dependence, with the ecological \nand economic implications which flow from that. However, it does not necessarily correlate \nwith greater affordability of housing or more access to green space. In fact, if anything, we \ndiscovered a negative relationship between housing affordability and green space per \ncapita and higher land use densities. In a second stage of the research, we conducted a \nqualitative analysis of a subset of six municipalities and identified key policy issues for \nmoving ahead with the smart growth agenda. The paper concludes with a discussion of \nthe policy issues that emerged from these case studies.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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