Urban sustainability via urban productivity? A conceptual review and framework proposal
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
This paper offers conceptual and operational insights for more effective and forward-looking local sustainability decision-making through the emerging concept and framework of holistic urban productivity. Following a short discussion of the contemporary understand and theoretical influences of urban sustainability, we explore the concept, principles, and practices of urban productivity and look at how they can help address urban sustainability planning, implementation, and assessment. We then introduce a conceptual framework for holistic urban productivity which encompasses a set of principles and goals to tackle complex urban processes for effective, inclusive, and forward-looking decision-making. It is informed by and converges numerous theories and approaches and seeks to act as an overarching framework to help operationalise sustainability by empowering urban actors to pursue balanced and synergistic optimisation of all urban community elements. A city that implements the principles and framework of holistic urban productivity embraces economic resilience with shifts in employment patterns and habits; innovative, socially just, and environmentally responsible technologies; compact and nature-enhancing land use planning; strong social connections and affordable housing; and green, light, and smart infrastructure. Urban productivity principles can help lead the transformation of cities into well-functioning and sustainable systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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