MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191400263

벤쿠버 Community Plan과 청소년 지원 공간에 관한 연구

2018· article· ko· W3191400263 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
최진희

Bibliographic record

Venue청소년시설환경 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban and spatial planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)Scope (computer science)SociologyCommunity buildingDiversity (politics)Community organizationLocal communityIndividualismPublic relationsPolitical scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vancouver's public system is deeply related to social welfare policies, and it’s operated on a community unit. ‘Community Plan’ is a detailed execution plan for Vancouver City Planning and serves as a concrete guideline for the community. It seeks diversity by differentiating local assets and characteristics from each plan, but ultimately aims at improving the quality of life of the community members. Urban people have felt the sense of belonging of their community by forming cultural, mental and social interactions within the scope of local living areas. However, as the age changes, people's lifestyles change. In a society where individualism is prevalent, a different relationship with the past is created. As the personal problems arising from the changes in living conditions gradually spread to the problems of society, we began to look for solutions and pursued shared social values. In the modern society, the concept of 'local community' and the role of public space in the city reappear. I also analyze the relationship between public facilities and the youth space in the community. In this paper, I examine the analysis of the Vancouver Community Plan and look for possibilities in our community.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue청소년시설환경Same topicUrban and spatial planningFrench-language works237,207