A Research Agenda for Transformative Urban Climate Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary from the Journal Editorial Board sets out the research agenda for the journal and invites contributions. We want to elicit and synthesize research- and practice-based knowledge toward the goal of resilient, equitable cities in a world with less than 1.5°C of warming, focusing on the transformational change needed to achieve this goal. Within this focus, we set out two primary areas that are pivotal to demonstrate the economic and political strategies necessary to stop climate breakdown: ecologically and socially viable and just economic systems; and purposeful, progressive, and inclusive government and governance. We set out key principles of transformational change and invite a plurality of conceptualizations, particularly emphasizing the need and potential of drawing on emerging thinking at regional, national, and international levels and applying it to city-scale. We outline the need for action-oriented, policy-relevant research in collaboration with city actors, tackling priority challenges in real-time, as well as an openness to new knowledge, perspectives, and contributors. We aim to catalyze and realize the opportunity to combine collective city action with academic (re-)thinking and research activism, in order to empower mayors with the evidence and narrative to create sustainable, thriving cities.
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 | 0.045 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".