MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6904701967 · doi:10.14288/1.0378607

Programming Place : The Question of the Smart City

2019· article· en· W6904701967 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmart cityPublic spaceSpace (punctuation)Real estateThe InternetUrban planningBig dataPublic sector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Internet of Things and the lure of smart cities are poised to revolutionize the urban areas of North America. Digital technology has introduced ubiquitous communication and influenced the organization of urban areas in North America, and together this has changed the ways in which people use urban public spaces. Now, the possibilities of the integration of digital technology into the physical infrastructure of the city has technology companies eager to partner with municipalities to realize the economic and managerial benefits of big data. The realities of the implementation of the smart city concept, however, has raised myriad concern around the role of private interests in public life with regards to privacy, ownership, control, and inequality. Many of these concerns play out in public spaces, as they are integral to the enactment of public life in cities while also increasingly funded, and therefore influenced, by private interests. What, then, are future programmatic and technological possibilities for urban public space that seize the opportunities while addressing the concerns? This project proposal first seeks to understand the historical and contemporary roles and functions of urban public space and real estate development, as well as big data. Then, it explores the influence of technology on the human understanding and organization of space to unpack the influence of the Internet of Things. Finally, a design project is proposed for the public space in Sidewalk Toronto’s Quayside development that seeks to address these phenomena through the thinking of the philosopher Hannah Arendt.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.044
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.149 · 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.

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicSmart Cities and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207