MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2386832612

Comparison of planning control in management of urban planning between China and North America

2004· article· en· W2386832612 on OpenAlex
YE Wei-ting

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

VenueJournal of Wuhan University of Hydraulic and Electric Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEducational Reforms and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZoningPublicityUrban planningLand-use planningChinaControl (management)Environmental planningSite planDemocracyPublic participationRegional planningPublic administrationPolitical scienceEnvironmental design and planningLand useGeographyCivil engineeringEngineeringLawManagementEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis probes into the problem of how to implement planning control in the management of urban planning and takes a method of international comparison, namely choosing the two countries in North America: America and Canada. That is, to view the urban planning control in America from the zoning ordinance and to introduce the publicity and democracy of the urban planning in Canada, trying to make an example for us to follow on the way to forming a legal system of urban design and advocating public participation.

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 score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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