MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032906650

Case Studies for Waterfront Cities of the Great Lakes Basin

2020· article· en· W3032906650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. W. King

Bibliographic record

VenueUWM Digital Commons (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Planning and Landscape Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyStructural basinEnvironmental planningGeologyGeomorphology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ryan King and I were tasked with researching and creating maps that depicted the details of the 15 largest waterfront cities (based on population size) around the Great Lakes Basin in the US and Canada. These maps would contain information detailing the city limits, industrial zones based on municipal zoning designations, and heavy rail lines for each of the 15 cities. The maps were created in Adobe Illustrator using information retrieved from various mapping resources found online, like ArcGIS, and various zoning designation maps from municipal websites. These maps were displayed at the ‘Reimagining Water’ NSF workshop in July 2019 held at the UWM School of Frewshwater Sciences and led by Professor of Architecture James Wasley. The attendees from around the Great Lakes were encouraged to mark up these maps with resources, contact information, ongoing and proposed projects about sustainable urban waterfront systems, which we then compiled to create a “profile” for each major city. These profiles will be used as a resource for future students or professionals of differing disciplines to use for connecting between the two groups, as well as providing a base for future research paths. Their first use will be in responding to the call for the creation of an NSF Research Network on Sustainable Urban Systems that is expected in the next few months.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWM Digital Commons (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)Same topicUrban Planning and Landscape DesignFrench-language works237,207