MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395004328 · doi:10.1177/0739456x241247838

Logistics and Urban Planning: A Review of Literature

2024· review· en· W4395004328 on OpenAlexaff
Kamilah Charters-Gabanek, Nicolas Raimbault, Peter Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Planning Education and Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban and Freight Transport Logistics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban planningReal estateBusinessEnvironmental planningCorporate governanceLand-use planningUrban densityField (mathematics)Regional scienceUrban studiesLand useEconomic geographyEconomic growthEconomicsGeographyCivil engineeringEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While logistics has come to be understood as central to the functioning of global and urban economies, this field is often ignored by urban planners. This literature review presents a broad discussion of the links between the logistics industry and a series of urban planning concerns, including spatial reorganization, real estate markets, urban planning, labor, and urban governance. We develop a framework around the forces shaping the supply of, and demand for, land for logistics to engage with current conversations in urban studies on the production of urban spaces, as well as to assist urban and regional planners.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Planning Education and ResearchSame topicUrban and Freight Transport LogisticsFrench-language works237,207