MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2486870731 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v9n4p216

Sustainable Coastal Cities between Theory and Practice (Case Study: Egyptian Coastal Cities)

2016· article· en· W2486870731 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ingy M. El Barmelgy, Sarah E. Abdel Rasheed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal and Marine Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeGeographySustainable developmentEnvironmental planningMediterranean climateEnvironmental resource managementBiodiversityEnvironmental protectionPolitical scienceEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Climate change is no longer considered an environmental or scientific issue but rather a developmental challenge that requires urgent, dynamic policy and technical responses at the regional, national and local levels. Its actions and responses impact sustainable development, ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems and the protection of biodiversity. There has been an intensive discussion and research about sea level rise (S.L.R) one of the most negative impacts of climate change which affects many coastal cities around the world. Egypt is considered one of the top five countries expected to be impacted with S.L.R in the world, especially northern areas of the Nile Delta and cities located on the Mediterranean coast.</p>This paper aims to evaluate the impact of S.L.R on the urban development strategies of the Egyptian northern coastal cities; highlighting the national response to global efforts regarding this problem in order to enhance the capacity for the adaptation and mitigation of potential impacts in the long term. Finally, it suggests some recommendations and framework actions to be taken to help Egyptian coastal cities in dealing with climate change over different timescales.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicCoastal and Marine ManagementFrench-language works237,207