MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909064711 · doi:10.1080/13563475.2018.1517594

Thinking about complexity and planning

2019· article· en· W2909064711 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Planning Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSketchUrban planningRelevance (law)ArchitectureSpatial planningGeographyComputer scienceRegional scienceSociologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes to examine the concept of complexity and its relevance for charting the newly emerging mega-conurbations in Asia. From the hyper-complexity of these giant constellations of the urban resulting from their scale, density, speed of development and the multiplicity of centres of governance and power. This paper tries to draw some conclusions for what can be planned and what cannot, and how planning might be organized. The paper is divided into five sections: the views of complex systems by three distinguished social scientists; a brief review of the planning literature on urban complexity; a sketch of the Yangtze Delta as a hyper-complex, pluricentric urban region; a rethinking of spatial planning in the face of urban complexity; and some principles for spatial planning under conditions of hyper-complexity in Asia.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.347
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.144 · 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