MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2379304290

The Comparison of Public Participation in Urban Planning Between China and Canada

2012· article· en· W2379304290 on OpenAlex
Chengchen Wu

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueChengshi fazhan yanjiu · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic participationStatus quoChinaUrban planningPlan (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Public administrationCorporate governancePolitical scienceEnvironmental planningLand-use planningPerspective (graphical)BusinessLand useGeographyCivil engineeringEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been more than 30 years since citizens of Canada participated in urban planning.The Canadian Federal Government and local governments believe that the governance of cities has been much better after the public's participation in urban planning,since they are more cooperative in urban planning and management.The author puts emphasis on advanced experiences in the origin,concepts,techniques and methods of public participation in Canada;and makes analysis of major problems and causes by comparing the status quo of public participation between China and Canada.In addition,the author recommends that China should explore public participation models that are pursuant to its national conditions by carrying out city pilot projects,from the perspective of legal system,urban planning management system as well as plan compilation procedures.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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