MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2212120573 · doi:10.1080/02723638.2015.1049482

Planning for growth in a natural resource boomtown: challenges for urban planners in Fort McMurray, Alberta

2015· article· en· W2212120573 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara Beth Keough

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Geography · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusUrban planningPopulationPopulation growthEnvironmental planningGeographyResource (disambiguation)Natural resourceEconomic growthBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsSociologyEngineeringCivil engineeringDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 2000 and 2010, the population of the city of Fort McMurray, Alberta increased by 80%, mainly due to the expansion of oil extraction projects and subsidiary industries. Population growth of this magnitude has significant consequences for city planning. While Fort McMurray struggles to keep up with enormous numbers of in-migrants, the cost of living in the city has skyrocketed. Using interviews with city planners and field experience in the city, in this paper I examine the current challenges faced by urban planners in Fort McMurray against the backdrop of global economic decision-making, corporate influence, and commodity dynamics. While the recession of 2008 gave city planners some breathing room, they still struggle with gathering accurate census information and predicting population growth, providing affordable housing, and balancing short-range planning with their long-term goals. Attempts by city planners to address these challenges could provide a contemporary model for urban planning in rapidly growing, resource-dependent communities.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations35
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban GeographySame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207