MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186594211

Evolutionary Land Tenure Information System Development: The Talking Titler Methodology 1

2013· article· en· W2186594211 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Barry, Richard Molero, Abdel-Rahman Muhsen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLand tenureLand administrationFlexibility (engineering)Information systemWorld Wide WebData scienceKnowledge managementGeographyEngineeringEnvironmental planning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Conventional land registration systems often do not produce the desired results in uncertain land tenure situations such as peri-urban areas in developing world cities, post-conflict situations, land restitution cases and aboriginal lands. The Talking Titler system is a software design and development methodology where flexibility in creating relationships between people and between people and their interests in land has been the primary design feature. It uses a range of structured, unstructured and semi-structured data types as evidence such as videos, photographs, documents, maps, digital graphics and sound recordings. It is most suited as a tool for prototyping and for evolutionary land tenure information system design and implementation. In its current form it is also a good training and information design support tool, and it can be used as a local level land records system. The methodology was originally conceived in urban informal settlement upgrade projects and land reform and land restitution projects in South Africa in the 1990’s. In recent years, the concepts have been tested through interviews with aboriginal peoples groups in Canada and field trials in Nigeria. This paper provides an overview of the conceptual design of the system, how the design was formulated, testing of the system, and current development. The current version uses a conventional relational database design. The research team has experimented with evolutionary database development using extensible markup language (XML) databases and self adapting software to reduce the human input into system changes. A current project is examining how to evolve the database using social network analysis.

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207