MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Planning Urban Futures With Reference to Sustainable Cities

2019· book-chapter· en· W2947678426 on OpenAlexaff
Rosario Adapon Turvey

Bibliographic record

VenuePractice, progress, and proficiency in sustainability · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures contractScope (computer science)GlobeSustainabilityConceptualizationEnvironmental planningUrban planningSustainable developmentPolitical scienceBusinessRegional scienceSociologyGeographyEngineeringCivil engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter is a review of scholarly works on planning for urban futures with special reference to sustainable cities. The chapter aims to produce an update of the challenges and current perspectives on urban planning, sustainability and development across the globe. As informed by research from the academic and scientific communities, the review provides the prospective directions and trends for securing a sustainable urban future. In the sustainable cities discourse, recent intellectual inquiry focused on the conceptualization and knowledge production to create sustainable cities. Though the scope of the review may not be exhaustive, the purpose is to articulate the current progress in the research front concerning concepts and definitions on sustainable cities, planning and methods for urban sustainability development and assessment. The ultimate goal is to provide local authorities, practitioners and/or city governments with some perspective and guidance in working towards urban sustainability in the future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePractice, progress, and proficiency in sustainabilitySame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207