MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240854917 · doi:10.5383/ijtee.12.01.001

Building Eco-Cities of the Future: The Example of Masdar City

2015· article· en· W4240854917 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Toufic Mezher, Gihan Dawelbait, Nawal Al‐Hosany

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMasdar Institute of Science and Technology
KeywordsEngineeringEnvironmental planningSmart citySustainable developmentEnvironmental economicsBusinessEnvironmental engineeringCivil engineeringEnvironmental scienceInternet of ThingsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global warming and increased population growth are putting more pressure on policy decision makers to adapt more sustainable approach to planning and designing future cities. This has led to the rise of Eco-Cities that have smart and sustainable infrastructures such as green buildings; intelligent transportation systems; and efficient electricity, water, wastewater, and solid waste networks. In addition these cities should be less dependent on fossil fuels and ensure healthier life and comfort. This paper gives a brief overview on the sustainable design concept of six Eco-cities from around the world such as Vauban in Germany, BedZed in the UK, Sonoma Mountain in California, Dongtan and Tianjin in China, and Sondgo in Korea. Masdar City is discussed in more details including the green buildings, intelligent transportation systems, and other important infrastructure systems. This endeavor requires the managing of complex systems which necessitates the coordination and collaboration of all the stakeholders that are involved designing, constructing, and operating the city. The paper concludes with lessons learned so far from Masdar City.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Thermal and Environmental EngineeringSame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207