MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606671337 · doi:10.3130/aijt.11.289

THE TECHNIQUES AND MEANINGS OF A WORKSHOP TO CALL THE CITIZENS' ATTENTION TO COMMUNITY BUILDING : The case of international workshop at the historical quarter in Harbin, China(Urban Planning)

2005· article· en· W2606671337 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.

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

VenueAIJ Journal of Technology and Design · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaQuarter (Canadian coin)State (computer science)Political scienceOrder (exchange)Environmental planningArchitectural engineeringPublic relationsEngineeringGeographyBusinessComputer scienceLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harbin is a famous historical city in China where the historic conservation has been implemented earlier than any other cities in China. However in order to promote the conservation further citizen participation will be essential in the near future. As the first step to promote the citizen participation in Harbin we tried a workshop to call the citizens' attention to community building with the Harbin Institute of Technology. The study has three parts: First, we will inspect the present state of citizen participation in Harbin historic conservation. Second, we will introduce the three workshop programs carried out in Harbin. Finally, we will examine possibilities and effects of workshops in the community building in China.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.211 · 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