MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6997166498

URBAN ACUPUNCTURE: public space regeneration through the 'Pedibus' micro-projects in the Oltrarno quarter in Florence

2015· other· en· W6997166498 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAdelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianQuarter (Canadian coin)Public spaceIncentiveUrban regenerationPublic transportUrban planning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pedibus project was delivered in Florence, a UNESCO-protected world heritage site. The morphological situation is complex: in the historic city centre pedestrian areas coexist with congested traffic and diverse local citizens seek a say in evolution of a living cityscape. The project tested a pioneering idea for the regeneration and re-appropriation of public space, specifically addressing the safety needs of three schools. The name Pedibus is derived from Latin pedis (foot) and bus. It provides an incentive to avoid cars use, organizing communal walking like a city bus system with terminals, fixed routes, stops and running times. The Pedibus suggests the participation of citizens through organization of those already in the field: parents, grandparents, volunteers and local police who in turn deal with the accompaniment of children. Research questions include: How can a protected heritage site accommodate the living needs of contemporary citizens, especially children? How can streetscape design encourage pedestrians use? How can minor interventions – urban acupuncture –catalyse further works in difficult contested situations as well as assist in finding funding to achieve them?

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.001

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide)French-language works237,207