MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211162198 · doi:10.4324/9780203799437

Urban and Regional Technology Planning

2006· book· en· W4211162198 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kenneth E. Corey, Mark Wilson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic Development AdministrationCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityMichigan State UniversityInstitute for Public Policy and Social ResearchMcGill UniversityPrinceton University
KeywordsEnvironmental planningRegional planningGeographyUrban planningRegional scienceEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Part of the popular Networked Cities series, Urban and Regional Technology Planning focuses on the practice of relational planning and the stimulation of local city-regional scale development planning in the context of the global knowledge economy and network society. Designed to offer scholars, practitioners, and decision makers studies on the ways of cities, technologies, and multiple forms of urban movement intersect and create the contemporary urban environment, Kenneth Corey and Mark Wilson explore the dynamics of technology-induced change that is taking place within the context of the global knowledge economy and network society. Examining first the knowledge economy itself, Wilson and Corey go on to discuss its implications before proposing ways to strategize for future intelligent development, with particular emphasis on the ALERT model for regional and local planning. An important read for those practicing or studying planning in this network society.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.017

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207