MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407867330 · doi:10.3828/tpr.2024.66

Coase’s ‘The Lighthouse in Economics’ revisited: a planning note on the view of building facades as a public good

2025· article· en· W4407867330 on OpenAlex
Lawrence W.C. Lai, Kwong Wing Chau, Terry K. W. Lam, Ken S.T. Ching, Frank T. Lorne

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTown Planning Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Institutions
Canadian institutionsNew York Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoase theoremArchitectural engineeringEconomicsPublic economicsNeoclassical economicsMicroeconomicsEngineeringTransaction cost

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This interdisciplinary article follows up on a discussion of the lighthouse as a public good in terms of planning in this journal by elucidating the neo-institutional economic proposition that views of building facades along streets are common property and are public goods in the sense that their consumption is mutually non-exclusive. Hence, planning interventions are justified from an economic point of view to ensure the adequate supply of this good. This proposition is set within the context of the arguments for and against a lighthouse being a public good with reference to Coase’s 1974 paper and recent interpretations. Some planning implications are discussed. This article was published open access under a CC BY-NC-ND licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.236 · 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