MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172114699 · doi:10.1177/0739456x04266606

New Urbanism as Sustainable Growth?

2004· article· en· W2172114699 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Planning Education and Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanismNew UrbanismUrban sprawlSustainabilityInfillSustainable developmentUrban planningArchitectural engineeringEnvironmental planningPolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologyEngineeringCivil engineeringArchitectureGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New Urbanism is being promoted as a set of ideas to mitigate sprawl, to encourage sustainable growth, and to facilitate infill development. In this article, the author focuses on the supply side story of New Urbanism to examine its implications for public policy. Specifically, the author evaluates where designers, developers, and planners involved with New Urbanist projects differ (or concur) in their endorsement of New Urbanist principles and in their satisfaction with the implementation of these ideas. Research reveals that in general, these designers, developers, and planners are endorsing New Urbanist ideas as a tool for achieving sustainable growth. The study shows that New Urbanist principles that focus on neighborhood design are most likely to be promoted and are expected to influence public policy, while principles that focus on regional planning may not generate enough support and are least likely to be implemented. The article concludes with policy recommendations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.306 · 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