Ecosystem Services in Canadian City Planning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainability plans offer insights into cities’ efforts to integrate sustainability but little on Ecosystem Services (ES) in sustainability and climate change planning. Integrating the Ecosystem Services Approach (ESA) in planning can help decision-makers understand the trade-offs between development scenarios and the human-nature relationship. This study surveyed Canada’s largest cities where threats to ES due to urbanization is the greatest. The survey explored the ES concept, frameworks, methods, applications in climate change planning and ES governance. It found that most cities recognize ES but had limited knowledge of ES frameworks and had challenges in ES valuation and mapping. The ESA was most promising in climate change planning to support climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction. The governance of ES appears to be partly responsible for its low and inconsistent uptake in planning. This study therefore recommends five policy and planning opportunities to help build climate resilient and sustainable 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it