MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402551198 · doi:10.1016/j.rspp.2024.100131

Estimating urban sprawl standards by means of the Urban Metric System

2024· article· en· W4402551198 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueRegional Science Policy & Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban sprawlMetric (unit)GeographyMetric systemComputer scienceEnvironmental planningUrban planningCivil engineeringEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article emphasizes the radically original character of the Urban Metric System: use of vector fields, a single parameter, several types of urban areas, a single input (the distribution of populations and jobs), no political boundaries taken into account and no density as input, abandonment of urban-rural distinctions and of the "commuting" criterion to distinguish the central city and its metropolitan area, and estimation of the centers, boundaries and densities of urban areas as outputs. The genesis of this approach is presented here for the first time. It leads not only to the calculation of a synthetic urban sprawl criterion (average distance to the center), but also to the estimation of four functions for calculating urban sprawl standards for central Canada, which was the authors’ ultimate research objective in terms of policy and 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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.283 · 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