Uncovering the Holistic Pathways to Circular Cities—The Case of Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of circularity has gained significant attention from governments of many cities across the world. The approaches to circular cities may range from narrower perspectives that see a circular city as the simple sum of circular economy initiatives to those more holistic that aim to integrate the whole urban system. Several researchers proposed frameworks that would guide cities to take a holistic perspective. This manuscript selects two frameworks and examines through them whether and to what extent broader and more holistic approaches to circular cities are being developed in practice. First, circularity principles, the scope of circular activities, and the concrete circular actions developed in the case study are read through Williams's approach to circular resource management. Second, the spatial circularity drivers framework of Marin and De Meulder is used to elucidate different sustainability framings and spatial practices that dominate contemporary conceptualisations of circularity. These two lenses are applied to five municipalities in Alberta (Canada) that have decided to develop strategies for 'shifting the paradigm' and transitioning to circular cities in 2018. Our study aims to investigate how holistic their roadmaps to circular cities are, and what changes are necessary to move towards more integrated approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".