MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944100215 · doi:10.1080/14649357.2019.1607217

Vision 20/20: Planning Theory and Practice, Past and Future

2019· article· en· W2944100215 on OpenAlexaff
Jill L. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Theory & Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyArchitectural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty years ago, in the opening line of his paper in the first issue of Planning Theory and Practice, Robin Thompson (1999, p. 126) wrote, “The planning profession is in a period of uncertainty at...

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.027
Scholarly communication0.0270.016
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0180.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.006

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 head0.335
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePlanning Theory & PracticeSame topicUrbanization and City PlanningFrench-language works237,207