MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407821423 · doi:10.1177/1757975915601038

Equity, sustainability and governance in urban settings

2016· article· en· W2407821423 on OpenAlexaff
Marilyn Rice, Trevor Hancock

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Promotion · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban sprawlEquity (law)SustainabilityUrban planningEmpowermentCivil societyCorporate governanceHealth equitySocial equalityEnvironmental planningPolitical sciencePublic relationsBusinessEconomic growthHealth careGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this commentary the urban setting is explored from the perspective of ecological sustainability and social equity. Urban-related issues are highlighted related to social inequality, deficits in urban infrastructures, behavior-related illnesses and risks, global ecological changes, and urban sprawl. Approaches to addressing these issues are described from the perspective of urban governance, urban planning and design, social determinants of health, health promotion, and personal and community empowerment. Examples of successful strategies are provided from Latin America, including using participatory instruments (assessments, evaluation, participatory budgeting, etc.), establishing intersectoral committees, increasing participation of civil society organizations, and developing virtual forums and networks to channel participatory and collaborative processes. A way forward is proposed, using the urban setting to show the imperative of creating intersectoral policies and programs that produce environments that are both healthy and sustainable. It will be important to include new forms of social participation and use social media to facilitate citizen decision-making and active participation of all sectors of society, especially excluded groups.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.422 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health PromotionSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207