MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2307309931 · doi:10.14288/1.0099007

Community plan monitoring : a case study

2009· article· en· W2307309931 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul Nowlan

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)Computer scienceBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis, a monitoring system is designed and implemented for the Community Development Plan for the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood of Vancouver, British Columbia. The literature review first provides the context for plan monitoring by showing that the complexity of urban systems necessitates a continuous planning process, i.e. a cyclical or iterative linking of decision-making, implementation and monitoring in order that planning can adapt to changing community goals, issues, and trends. The role of monitoring in this continuous planning process is initially reviewed in terms of systems feedback and control. However, the complexity of urban systems suggests that concentrating on the goals and objectives of a plan provides too narrow a perspective for monitoring. An expanded role for plan monitoring, one that also addresses assumptions, policies, decisions and issues of concern, is reviewed in the context of a general monitoring system model. This model incorporates four sub-systems: information collection; technical evaluation; provision of advice; and monitoring system improvement. The case study is conducted in three stages: first, a monitoring system based on the four function model is designed for the Mount Pleasant Plan; second, monitoring systems requirements are specified for one section of the Plan, the Mount Pleasant industrial area strategy; and third, data are collected and analyzed for the still more specific policy to maintain existing residential use in the industrial area.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicEvaluation and Performance Assessment→French-language works237,207→