MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741878652 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v10n4p43

Relevance of Walking and Informal Activities in Urban Space: A Case of Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania

2017· article· en· W2741878652 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fortunatus Bahendwa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)CommitTanzaniaUrban spaceUrban designPublic spaceElement (criminal law)Work (physics)SociologyUrban planningPolitical scienceArchitectural engineeringRegional scienceSocioeconomicsComputer scienceCivil engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design discourse mostly in developing world cities tends to commit walking as the concern for transportation purpose. This notion tends to dismiss walking as an extended conception of urban space and take it for granted which allow elements of informal walking fields to emerge. This orients walking in the lines of a mere ‘street sidewalk’ rather than an important element in enhancing urban space in terms of environmental quality, access and use of urban space and everyday life realities. The empirical study in Dar es Salaam show that the gap in walking provision seem to be filled by the informal actors in urban space struggling to create the informal walking spheres in which trading, vending, meeting and recreating take place. Such observations draw a lesson that such informal developed urban activities along the streets and the urban space have not been disassociated from walking. The paper recognizes the essence of such integration of walking with other activities in urban space. It is thus concluded that urban design discourse have to conceive walking, including its contextual elements, as integral component in the field of urban public space that connect with other urban functions rather than isolate it from them.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207