MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2143769402

CONTEXT AND PROSPECTS FOR INTEGRATED URBAN MODELS FOR METROPOLITAN POLICY ANALYSIS AND PLANNING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: THE CASE OF METRO MANILA

2015· article· en· W2143769402 on OpenAlexaff
Rubén Mercado, Antonio Páez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaContext (archaeology)Developing countryUrban planningSustainable developmentEnvironmental planningRegional scienceBusinessTransportation planningLand useTransport engineeringPolicy analysisPerspective (graphical)Economic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsEngineeringComputer sciencePublic administrationGeographyCivil engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Metropolitan areas in the developing world face a pressing need for policy tools to evaluate urban development strategies. This need, placed within the context of fiscal restraint, sustainable development, and public administrative regimes, has kindled an interest in the use of “integrated urban models ” (IUM) that explicitly consider urban transportation and land use interactions. While the development and use of these models has helped science to better understand urban processes, they can only be useful to society as a whole if used to inform policy making and analysis. The objective of this paper is to put into perspective the necessary conditions for the formulation of an IUM useful for policy and planning in developing countries taking the case of Metro Manila. The paper frames the steps needed for development and application of a model of this type in the area.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→