From crisis management towards an integrated climate policy: Investigating urban heat and flooding policies in Geneva (2000s-2020s)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do we create livable cities in times of climate change? And how can we make urban infrastructure resilient to climatic challenges? In a panel discussion, experts and policymakers from Switzerland and North America explore the challenges and opportunities of urban climate adaptation – from sustainable urban planning to civic participation. In line with the other case studies conducted in this research project investigating Toronto, Chicago and Zurich, this presentation aims to investigate more closely how climate adaptation and mitigation efforts are articulated in the case of Geneva. We focus specifically on two policy issues and their corresponding policy strategies: a) heat policy and b) water policy. Comparing these two policy domains is relevant in the case of Geneva because of their contrasting temporalities. As in most Western European cities benefitting from a continental climate, urban heat is a relatively new policy issue in Geneva. In contrast, Geneva is located at the very end of the largest Western European lake and crossed by two rivers, one of them coming directly from the Alpine mountains without any dam or retention basin to mitigate its flow. Therefore, Geneva has a long tradition of water and flooding management policies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".