MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263516610

Patterns of Our Footsteps: Topophilia, Rhythm, and Diversity in Urban Landscapes

2014· article· en· W2263516610 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of the Fraser ValleyRoyal Roads University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsRhythmDiversity (politics)DowntownMovement (music)Sense of placeSpace (punctuation)GeographySociologyCommunicationAestheticsEconomic geographyComputer scienceArtArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Topophilia, or love of place, has been described as a desirable outcome of urban planning. The rhythms of movement within a city at different times and in diverse ways help to generate this sense of topophilia within urban spaces. Multi-rhythmic spaces are partly a product of deliberative design; spaces of overlapping rhythms create room for spontaneous connections that can build a sense of community and social capital. In contrast, spaces dominated by single rhythms are "dead spaces" a good deal of the time, such as monochronous hollowed out downtown cores or commuter corridors. Granville Island, Canada is given as an example of a designed space that facilitates both the movement of people in diverse ways at different times, and incorporates non-human rhythms as well.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.273 · 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