MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399354889 · doi:10.1080/02697459.2024.2359784

The ecosystem services concept in urban planning: the criteria for practical fit

2024· article· en· W4399354889 on OpenAlexafffund
K.H. Thompson, Peter N. Duinker, Kate Sherren, Anders Hayden, Mikiko Terashima

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Practice and Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNova Scotia Research Innovation Trust
KeywordsAdaptabilityUrban planningRelevance (law)Ecosystem servicesEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementCore (optical fiber)Process managementBusinessComprehensive planningManagement scienceComputer scienceGeographyEcosystemPolitical scienceEngineeringEnvironmental scienceEconomicsEcologyCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Application of the ecosystem services (ES) concept in urban planning has potential for improving environmental and human health outcomes in cities. We aimed to narrow an identified ES implementation gap by identifying the criteria for the practical fit of the ES concept in urban planning. We found that local relevance and adaptability within current planning approaches were core criteria for practical fit. If not met immediately, these criteria may be met over time through policy entrepreneurship. Further research in different locations and planning systems would increase understanding of the enabling factors for applying ES in urban planning.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.032
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlanning Practice and ResearchSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207