Implementation Plan for Low-carbon Resilient City towards Sustainable Development Goals: Challenges and Perspectives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitigation and adaptation are two climate approaches for reducing risks and preparing for hazards caused by the climate change. The development of low-carbon resilient cities must integrates mitigation and adaptation, which has great potential in decarbonization and natural disaster prevention However, limited studies have focused on systematizing the low-carbon resilience approach. To address this problem, this study aims to develop an implementation plan of low-carbon resilient cities. A theoretical framework is designed to analyze integrated strategies and key performance indicators for low-carbon resilient cities. Two related schemes, the “SIEGE” scheme and “5P” scheme, are provided to assist in the planning and governance. Challenges for implementing a low-carbon resilience approach are discussed from institutional, regulatory, financial, technical and communication perspectives. Guided by the theoretical frameworks and practical strategies, cities will be able to move towards social equality, energy-efficiency, hazards preparedness, governing-effectiveness and innovation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it