MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164795622 · doi:10.1038/s42949-021-00023-z

Ageing and population shrinking: implications for sustainability in the urban century

2021· article· en· W3164795622 on OpenAlexaff
Marcin Pawel Jarzebski, Thomas Elmqvist, Alexandros Gasparatos, Kensuke Fukushi, Sofia Eckersten, Dagmar Haase, Julie Goodness, Sara Khoshkar, Osamu Saitô, Kazuhiko Takeuchi, Töres Theorell, Nannan Dong, Fumiko Kasuga, Ryugo Watanabe, Giles B. Sioen, Makoto Yokohari, Jian Pu

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Urban Sustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsFuture Earth
FundersJapan Science and Technology AgencyJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceUniversity of TokyoNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNatural Environment Research CouncilSwedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher EducationSight Research UK
KeywordsResizingAgeingSustainabilityPopulation ageingEconomic geographyPopulationGeographyBusinessSociologyDemographyMedicineBiologyInternational tradeEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Population ageing and shrinking are demographic phenomena with far-reaching implications for sustainability in the current context of extensive and rapid urbanization. This Perspective rationalizes their interface by (a) identifying the challenges and opportunities that ageing and shrinking urban populations will have for implementing the sustainable development goals (SDGs), and (b) discussing some emerging interventions to capitalise on the opportunities and reduce the challenges to achieving sustainability. We argue that a diverse set of context-specific technological, socioeconomic, institutional and governance interventions would be needed to leverage effectively the opportunities and minimize the risks posed by ageing and shrinking urban populations for long-term sustainability.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations238
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Urban SustainabilitySame topicUrbanization and City PlanningFrench-language works237,207