MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Envisioning the natural city: The guest-editor's foreword

2004· article· en· W4205441572 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ingrid Leman Stefanovic

Bibliographic record

VenueEkistics and the new habitat · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafeguardingOfficerManagementLibrary scienceExecutive directorPolitical scienceNatural (archaeology)Environmental ethicsSociologyPublic administrationGeographyLawArchaeologyMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author is Guest Editor for the present volume of Ekistics (vol. 71, nos. 424-426 and 427-429, 2004) on The Natural City. Dr Stefanovic agreed to serve as the Director for the new Centre for Environment, University of Toronto, commencing July I, 2005, for a five-year term.She is the former Director of the Division of the Environment, one of the three units now integrated into the new Centre, and former Associate Chair for the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto. Dr Stefanovic is a Professor of Philosophy, whose teaching and research focus on values and perceptions of environmental decision making. She has a 30-year teaching and research career in interdisciplinary fields, ranging from environmental ethics to urban planning and environmental policy development. Her most recent book is entitled Safeguarding Our Common Future: Rethinking Sustainable Development (SUNY, 2000). Dr Stefanovic, one of the eartiest members of the World Society for Ekistics, having served on various occasions as member of the Executive Council and officer of the Society, was theorganizer and acted as Chair of the international symposion on The Natural City," 23-25 June, 2004, sponsored by the University of Toronto's Division of the Environment, Institute for Environmental Studies, and the World Society of Ekistics.

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)0.000
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 score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEkistics and the new habitatSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207