MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990195362 · doi:10.1504/ijssoc.2019.103700

Urban planning and sustainable cities

2019· article· en· W2990195362 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 Journal of Sustainable Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)GlobeSustainabilityUrban planningEnvironmental planningSustainable developmentFutures contractSustainable cityPolitical scienceBusinessGeographyEngineeringCivil engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a review of scholarly works on planning for urban futures with special reference to sustainable cities. The article 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. Within the sustainable cities discourse, recent intellectual inquiry has centred on the conceptualisation and knowledge production in creating 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.207 · 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