The functions of knowledge management processes in urban impact assessment: the case of Ontario
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
Addressing sustainability incorporates multidisciplinary and heterogeneous knowledge that has extended spatial and temporal horizons. Within such context, in contrast to a procedural (prescriptive) approach, a functional or performance-based approach to setting and designing knowledge management process is more suitable. To help set up the functions of knowledge management processes, we examined 30 cases of environmental impact assessment in Ontario, Canada and engaged experts who were involved in these cases. Four main functions are proposed as essential: support the acquisition and use of sustainable knowledge; communicate sustainable practices and harness community input; facilitate coordinated analysis and integrated assessment; and reengineer regulation enforcement to simplify the process. The functions proposed are not intended to be universal, as conditions (legal and technical) will vary from one jurisdiction to another. However, it is hoped that they can be benchmarked by other jurisdictions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 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