MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2281291684 · doi:10.18192/clg-cgl.v3i1.187

Local Agenda 21 and Culture: Lessons from the Czech Republic

2011· article· en· W2281291684 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture and Local Governance · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitSustainable developmentEarth SummitCohesion (chemistry)CzechPolitical scienceSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainable development represents one of the leading concepts of modern society. On the local level, sustainable development principles are implemented by Local Agenda 21 (LA 21), the most influential output of the 1992 Earth Summit. Although culture is not explicitly mentioned in its definitions of sustainable development, there are close links between culture, on one side, and the economic, social, and ecological dimensions of sustainable development, on the other. Culture is an important factor of social cohesion and economic development, and culturally led urban and rural regeneration projects may have also positive ecological impacts. Moreover, the efforts to maintain local culture may be the main impetus in accepting the LA 21 principles in culturally rich communities. This article assesses the importance of culture in the LA 21 implementation process, with two municipalities from the Czech Republic as case studies. Findings point to complex links between LA 21 and culture. Uherské Hradiště is a culturally rich city that is progressive in the LA 21 implementation process; however, our findings show that LA 21 and culture live independent lives in planning processes. Zděchov tells a completely different story of the relationship between culture and LA 21: here, local culture has become the leitmotif of the LA 21 implementation process. The goal to maintain and develop local culture has been the prime motivation behind the decision to accept the LA 21 principles. The case studies share several common characteristics. In both cases, LA 21 has stimulated public interest in both municipalities, and ever more local actors are getting involved in the LA 21 implementation process. A combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches has been applied in this process. LA 21 is also perceived as a good brand for project management, and may be an incentive for innovations in strategic planning.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.212 · 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