Sustainable development in the Vancouver-Seattle corridor: a system for transborder planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implementation of planning goals and objectives, including the goal of regional sustainability, requires cooperation and a degree of social unity, or cohesion, within society. In large, complex societies, a system of legally established planning mechanisms is also required to make and implement the public policies that express societal goals and objectives. In many regions, such as the Vancouver—Seattle Corridor, planners have another obstacle to implementing their communities’ visions: jurisdictional boundaries that segment otherwise contiguous populations. In order to effectively implement the common goals and values of such a divided region, a planning system is needed that will transcend political boundaries. Many multijurisdictional regions have developed mechanisms in order to make and implement policies, and to provide advice to governing authorities. These mechanisms are considered as possible models for the components of a transborder planning system for sustainable development in the Vancouver—Seattle Corridor. A theoretical planning system is constructed and presented to a set of targeted individuals for evaluation. Many conflicts emerge between the theoretical planning system and the political realities of the study region. The goal of sustainability requires the resolution of such conflicts in the Vancouver—Seattle Corridor and in other planning regions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".