MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316458587 · doi:10.5632/jila.66.699

Issues Related with the Introduction of a Planning Framework Founded on the Conservation of Recreational Experience into Natural Park Planning in Japan

2003· article· en· W2316458587 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Akihiro Kobayashi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Japanese Institute of Landscape Architecture · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban and spatial planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationZoningEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementNational parkBusinessGeographyPolitical scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to manage the probelms induced by increasing public demands for outdoor recreation and diversification of recreational use in national parks, this study investigated the validity and the subjects for introducing key points of the planning frameworks developed in U.S.A. and Canada for coping with these problems into the planning of national parks in Japan. Research papers concerning about park planning process founded upon the framework of “Recreational Opportunity Spectrum” were studied to discuss key points in detail. As a result, there was a series of developed system to conserve natural resources and diversity of opportunities of recreational experience. Among the important elements presented were the followings: specific statements of park purpose; zoning system based on the characteristics of settings; identification of indicator reflecting conditions of each zone, standards specifying a limit of acceptable change; logical linkage between standards and park purpose; monitoring the conditions; countermeasure to unacceptable change of the conditions; and feedback of consequences of management action to revise the planning. Based on the result, we should survey to make inventories of recreational opportunities for zoning system and to identify indicators and standards of acceptable change of each zone.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Japanese Institute of Landscape ArchitectureSame topicUrban and spatial planningFrench-language works237,207