MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399828167 · doi:10.32920/26052547

Land Value Capture and Climate Change: An Assessment Framework

2024· preprint· en· W4399828167 on OpenAlexaffabout
Parvesh Kumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeValue (mathematics)Environmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningEconomicsComputer scienceGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The built environment of a city is the result of cumulative land-use decisions and investments. Most of the research on Land Value Capture (LVC) is focused on site-specific mitigation. This study proposes a five Es approach to analyse LVC-supported climate change financing through engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. This approach aligns with Canada's 2030 Agenda National Strategy and climate action plans. The framework is tested on a pilot case - the City of Ottawa. The assessment shows Ottawa needs to prioritise enforcement and evaluation aspects of climate financing. This study recommends a special budgetary provision to support climate-friendly projects municipally, linking existing and proposed climate projects and program funding to LVC sources of funds provincially and encouraging funding capacity building to create climate change awareness federally. A national policy document, evaluation framework and urban reform agenda are recommended for an enabling policy environment for LVC to support climate projects.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207