Rethinking sustainability frameworks in neighbourhood projects: a process-based approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A process-based approach is used to examine the deployment of two neighbourhood-scale sustainability assessment systems and their tools in two European cities. It explores how these sustainability assessment systems and their tools are contextualized within a larger design and planning process by considering how stakeholders collaborate, how they set design problems, how they make decisions and how they propose design solutions in the early design phases. Specifically, using interviews conducted with key project actors in Malmö, Sweden, and Barcelona, Spain, this paper examines how the sustainability assessment systems in each respective case study were framed, and how this framing impacted upon the design process. A key finding is that how sustainability assessment systems are framed has just as significant an impact as the nature of the tools, especially on the processes entailed. Community participation can have a strong, positive impact on the design process and on outcomes. The case studies confirm that context and players cannot be divorced from tools.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it