MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340663609 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n5p241

Local Community Perception towards Slow City: Gokceada Sample

2016· article· en· W2340663609 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melike ERDOĞAN

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSustainable Urban and Rural Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionGlobalizationSample (material)PhenomenonSustainabilitySociologyGeographyEconomic growthPolitical sciencePsychologySocioeconomicsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Slow city movement has been firstly emerged in Italy with the purpose of eliminating the homogenous structure that the globalization has created in the cities. Slow city has been turned into an international network due to a philosophy providing sustainability of the city by improving the quality of individuals’ life. Turkey is also among the states which are the members of International Cittaslow Union. 11 districts have participated slow city movement starting with Seferihisar in Turkey. One of these districts is Gokceada constituting the case study. Gokceada has assumed the title of slow city by carrying out the criteria required for slow city in 2011. The aim of this study is to determine how the people’s perceptions and what their expectations towards citta slow phenomenon are. It is aimed to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of being a citta slow according to the public. The study has been conducted in the center of Gokceada through interview method. As a result of the research, it has been reached a conclusion that the people have knowledge about the Cittaslow concept. In addition, they have also assessed Gokceada being a citta slow as a positive development in terms of advantages provided.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicSustainable Urban and Rural DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207