MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142701192 · doi:10.1080/13563470701231703

Liveable Cities in Japan: Population Ageing and Decline as Vectors of Change

2006· article· en· W2142701192 on OpenAlexaff
André Sørensen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Planning Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResizingCorporate governancePopulation ageingGlobalizationPopulationUrban planningEconomic geographySpace (punctuation)Economic growthPolitical sciencePublic spaceEnvironmental planningGeographyEconomyBusinessSociologyEconomicsEconomic policyEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The challenge of creating liveable cities is emerging as a major policy priority around the world. Globalization, the emerging network society, increasing mobility, and the environmental, economic, health and social imperatives to create more sustainable and liveable cities have combined to increase pressures, primarily on local governments and actors to reinvigorate urban governance, urban planning and urban design. One essential aspect of this project is the improvement and vitalization of urban spaces. In this regard, Japan has significant challenges, stemming from its distinctive history of urban space management, its low proportion of public space in cities, and its aging and imminently shrinking population. At the same time, however, Japan has important opportunities and strengths stemming from its legacies of urban built form, the exceptional vigour of its place-based communities, and its rapidly aging and imminently shrinking population. This paper explores some of the opportunities and challenges facing attempts to build more liveable cities in Japan.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Planning StudiesSame topicUrbanization and City PlanningFrench-language works237,207