MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Smart City Projects Financing

2024· article· en· W4394857859 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocioEconomic Challenges · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipSubsidyBusinessPopularityPublic–private partnershipIndex (typography)FinanceScopusEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implementation of advanced digital technologies and innovations in smart cities for the provision of more efficient, sustainable, and inclusive city services, the development of infrastructure, and the improvement of citizens’ quality of life require appropriate financing technologies. In addition to purely public (for example, green bonds, social impact bonds, state subsidies, etc.) and purely private (venture investments, leasing, etc.) financial instruments, various options for public-private partnerships and financing with and against the participation of the community (participatory ), which increase the efficiency of budget financing due to the agreed distribution of risks and responsibilities between stakeholders. The bibliometric analysis of publications indexed by Scopus using the keywords “smart city” and “public-private partnership” using the VOSviwer tool allowed establishing the periods of growth (2013-2019 and 2022-2023) and decline (2019-2022) of the popularity of this topic among scientists, countries-leaders of research activity (USA, India, China, Italy, Spain, Great Britain, Canada and Germany), dominant directions of cross-sectoral research. The analysis of the Smart City Index Report (IMD Smart City Index Report) showed that in 2023, the top 5 leaders were Switzerland (Zurich), Norway (Oslo), Australia (Canberra), Denmark (Copenhagen), and Great Britain (London). With the help of the Google Trends toolkit, an analysis of the dynamics of Internet requests over the past 10 years from citizens of these countries, as well as Ukraine and the world, was carried out using identical keywords. The analysis proved that both in these countries and in the world as a whole, public interest in the development of the smart grid was recorded (in Ukraine, the highest peak (100 GT Scale) was in 2019; in Great Britain and Switzerland – in 2018, in Denmark – in 2017 and 2022, in Australia and Norway – in 2016) against the background of an almost absolute (except for Great Britain and Australia) lack of public interest in issues of public-private partnership. A regression model was developed to study the impact of participatory financing on the readiness level of Ukraine’s regions (as of 2020) to implement smart local development technologies. An integral indicator was used as the resulting variable, within which data on the assessment of the availability of electronic public services and the level of automation and digitization of public services (the number of state and local self-government bodies that provided the possibility of using electronic democracy tools), the level of use electronic platforms for communication with state bodies (the number of registered “E-appeals”, published “E-petitions” and reports on “E-consultations”), the availability of the Internet (the number of Internet subscribers and the share of households that have access to Internet services home). In the modeling process, adjustments were made for the gross regional product and the population of the respective region, the weighting factors were determined by the method of principal components, the estimation of the model parameters was carried out by the method of least squares, the calculations were made using the MS Excel spreadsheet and the Statistica application program package.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.194 · 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