MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766550486

Skinny Streets and Green Neighborhoods: Design for Environment and Community - eScholarship

2006· article· en· W2766550486 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

VenueElectronic Green Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicUrban Agriculture and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban sprawlAtlantaInfillArchitectureUrban designUrban planningSociologyEngineeringGeographyArchaeologyCivil engineeringMetropolitan area
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Review: Skinny Streets and Green Neighborhoods: Design for Environment and Community By Cynthia Girling and Ronald Kellett Reviewed by Kathy Piselli Atlanta Fulton Public Library, USA Cynthia Girling and Ronald Kellett. Skinny Streets and Green Neighborhoods: Design for Environment and Community. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005. ISBN: 1-59726-028-2. ISBN 13:978-1-59726-028- 2 $60.00 trade cloth. ISBN:1-55963-337-9 ISBN 13:978-1-55963-337- 6 $35.00 trade paper. The oil embargo and energy crisis of 1973 trained a high-beam headlight on the wasteful way America had become accustomed to getting itself to work in urban areas. Though suburbs had been the major urban construction project since the end of World War II, good planning was rarely used in building them. The result was a combination of cookie-cutter architecture, poor land use, and automobile-dominated transportation networks resulting in sprawl, dramatic loss of green space, horrendous traffic situations for commuters, and even fines on some cities for Clean Air Act violations. More than a generation later, can it be said that anything has changed? In the majority of areas, the answer is, sadly, no. But there are exceptions. This book showcases examples of good contemporary thinking in urban planning. Focusing on the neighborhood rather than one building or region, these promote urban ecology and good environmental design. A preface provides concise but critical background, introducing neophytes to the lingo of urban architects, terms such as “gray”, “green”, and “infill”. In the same concise language it explains why neighborhoods should bother to incorporate environmental concerns into planning. One section profiles each case study with color illustrations. The case studies are a collection of developments located in large cities and suburban areas. One is in the eastern U.S., three in the Midwest, and six in the west; four are in Canada. All but two date from the late 1990s and the newest was initiated in 2005. Several are “brownfields”, built on former industrial sites. One has methane gas beneath it, a common problem when building on or near a wetlands or landfill. Many incorporate wetland restoration into their design. All make decisions about ratio of gray to green. In two other chapters, the issues of gray and green building are treated in more depth, using the case studies as illustrations. The chapter on gray

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.178 · 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