MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562314247 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v12-n3-446-456

Urban facilities management: A systemic process for achieving urban sustainability

2016· article· en· W2562314247 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFacilities and Workplace Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityBusinessEnvironmental planningFacility managementProcess (computing)Urban planningEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With cities at the forefront of the challenge of achieving global sustainability, a key concern for urban management bodies is to identify ways to promote sustainable development at the urban and sub-urban level. Assessment mechanisms have dominated this field for the past two decades, and sustainable community assessment tools (SCATs) are fast becoming the principal framework adopted by urban planners and developers to drive sustainability. This paper investigates the efficacy and applicability of this approach to urban sustainability. The study aims to establish that the deployment of a management platform, founded in the principles of facilities management (FM), can provide better mechanisms to facilitate the process of achieving urban sustainability. The data were collected by means of survey interviews with key stakeholders who consisted of two main categories: participants from private and public sector engaged in the management and development of sustainable cities. Secondly, developers of the tools were interviewed. The tools evaluated include: LEED for Neighbourhood Development (LEED-ND), BREEAM Communities (BREEAM-C), CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD), and Green Star Communities (GSC). It was found that the prescriptive and outcomes-based nature of assessment tools do not adequately accommodate institutional and social imperatives of urban sustainability. Additionally, a need for more a robust procedural framework to manage relationships between the various relevant professionals and interest groups was highlighted. This would provide a unified method to facilitate the achievement of urban sustainability. The paper concludes that urban sustainability needs to draw upon the management principles of FM to facilitate more comprehensive development and assessment relevant to the needs of a specific locale. Without a process-oriented method such as this, cities will continue to fall short of their sustainable imperatives.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.272 · 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