MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781260667 · doi:10.5539/jel.v7n2p60

Education for the Creative Cities: Awareness Raising on Urban Challenges and Biocultural Preservation

2017· article· en· W2781260667 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aida Mammadova

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban and spatial planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRIPS architectureCreativitySustainabilityEnvironmental educationField tripDiversity (politics)SociologyGeographyPsychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceEcologyEngineeringSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creative Cities are facing the big challenges due to the demographical, environmental and economic issues. In this study we considered to create the educational fieldworks inside the creative city and raise the awareness in youth about the importance of the biocultural preservations to sustain the city’s creativity and sustainability. Our participants were 10 international participants with different backgrounds and majors. The fieldwork trips were divided according to the ecosystems of Kanazawa City, in three main part: mountain areas, rives and forest areas and finally coastal areas. In each course students directly interviewed the local artists, craftsmen and shop owners and recorded about the importance of biocultural diversity to preserve the city’s traditions. Evaluation of the students were conducted according to the submitted reports with comparative analysis, and providing further recommendations. From the results, awareness level about the present issues was increased in each student, and they provided the recommendation according to the local issues. However, this time we did not considered the scientific background of all interviews, and all recommendations were given based on the opinions of the locals. To improve our methodological approach in our next studies we are going to develop approved survey instruments to record and analyse the data collected by students, and perform quantitative data analysis with second cohort research group to evaluate and confirm the outcomes of the field trips.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 Education and LearningSame topicUrban and spatial planningFrench-language works237,207