MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388831533 · doi:10.15302/j-laf-1-030037

Positioning Landscape Architecture in a Global Context: Review on Critical Landscape Planning During the Belt and Road Initiative

2023· article· en· W4388831533 on OpenAlexaff
Taro Zheming CAI

Bibliographic record

VenueLandscape Architecture Frontiers · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Planning and Landscape Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLandscape architectureContext (archaeology)ArchitectureLandscape planningLandscape designChinaRegional planningConceptual frameworkLandscape contractingStudioLandscape assessmentSociologyUrban planningEnvironmental planningGeographyEngineeringCivil engineeringArchaeologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ashley Scott Kelly and Xiaoxuan Lu’s recent publication Critical Landscape Planning During the Belt and Road Initiative emerges from their Landscape Architecture course on ecological planning at the University of Hong Kong lasted for several years. The book studies the landscape transformation along the China-Laos Railway, one of the earliest Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure projects. Targeted towards the audience of planners and allied professionals working in regional and transnational projects, the authors provide a comprehensive discussion on histories, planning pedagogies, and conceptual frameworks of global developments. Demonstrated through a series of studio proposals, the book can be seen as a provocative and ambitious experiment, in which Kelly and Lu challenge conventional epistemologies and protocols in landscape architecture research and professional practices. The review focuses on the authors’ conceptual and methodological frameworks to explore “critical landscape planning” as both pedagogical and practical practices. Additionally, this review invites critical reflections on the positionality of the landscape architecture discipline.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandscape Architecture FrontiersSame topicUrban Planning and Landscape DesignFrench-language works237,207