Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban density can curb sprawl, reduce pollution, and limit greenhouse gas emissions. Potential social benefits of density include access to public transit and walkability and an increased supply of housing mitigating high housing costs. There is nothing inevitable about density leading to these environmental or social benefits, however, and poorly done densification can exacerbate social and environmental problems. Some even argue that green urban development spurs gentrification by making city center living more attractive to the middle-class. Much depends on how urban development is done and if social and environmental goals are explicitly incorporated into the creation of a compact urban area. Vancouver, Chicago, and Birmingham illustrate some of the myriad difficulties in achieving the promised benefits of green urban development. These range from NIMBYism to fears of gentrification to city officials’ desire to appease developers. Yet looked at together, these cities’ efforts to incorporate environmental and social goals into their development agendas show that more is occurring to further these goals than the most critical accounts of neoliberal greening would suggest. They also show how much more needs to be done to ensure that the environmental and social potential of green urban development is achieved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.025 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".