MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200032144 · doi:10.3390/land10121376

Green Urban (RE) Generation: A Research and Practice Methodology to Better Implement Green Urban Infrastructure Solutions

2021· article· en· W4200032144 on OpenAlexaff
Jon Laurenz, Jone Belausteguigoitia, Ander de la Fuente, Daniel Roehr

Bibliographic record

VenueLand · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkepticismComputer scienceProcess (computing)Order (exchange)Adaptation (eye)Process managementSystems engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Software engineeringBusinessEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Green Urban Infrastructure Solutions (GUIS) are becoming more and more popular globally. Recent research reveals the environmental benefits derived from GUIS as well as their contribution to climate change adaptation. However, the urgent need for GUIS in order to meet the Paris Agreement, has not translated into an easy implementation thereof. This paper proposes a circular design methodology (CDM) where the combination of research and practice contributes to minimize both current skepticism and barriers when implementing GUIS. It includes a community engagement process to better understand their sensitivity and build consensus on GUIS. Additionally, GUIS are implemented, in a series of pilot projects and specific research is applied to comprehend the environmental benefits derived from these GUIS. The paper argues that GUIS represent a significant opportunity to respond to climate change risks as well as to achieve other urban benefits; however, in order to overcome existing barriers and skepticism, the proposed CDM reaches for more consensual urban solutions and drives uptake and implementation of GUIS, contributing to move from pilot project to common practice.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207