Technology first, sustainability later: a systematic review on the literature on the policy development of China’s smart city strategy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In China, like in other countries, smart cities have been proposed to make cities more efficient and, ideally, also more sustainable and low-carbon. Unlike other countries, China pursued a smart city strategy since 2008 with substantial funding and intermediate goals, resulting in high data and computational-intensive digital infrastructures in some cities. However, there is a lack of systematic understanding of how Chinese smart city policies and practices evolved. It is also unclear if and how smart cities achieve sustainability goals. Here, we fill these gaps by conducting a systematic literature review on the timeline of China’s smart city policies during the past three Five-Year Plans. The literature review, based on screening 7995 papers, and analyzing 364 relevant articles, shows that priority research topics are smart city systems and governance, including surveillance, with a more limited focus on policy. China’s net-zero carbon strategy is far less developed than its smart city strategy. The funding and development of large-scale data and AI technology is exemplified in Hangzhou’s ‘Urban Brain’. While sustainability goals are often associated with smart cities, we find few applications with demonstrated sustainability benefits. We suggest that mutual learning is possible by combining the net zero strategy and sustainable city strategy of cities like Copenhagen, Nairobi, Singapore and Toronto with the urban brain strategy of cities like Hangzhou.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it