Making and using environmental information : an analysis of the development and use of two GIS tools for public environmental engagement
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
Following the admonition to "think globally, act locally" has proven difficult. Discussions of sustainability often remain at a local level without addressing global sustainability and yet the need for local engagement is well demonstrated. Using the case of Montreal's West Island, two environmental information tools were created and then evaluated on their ease of development, ability to be publicly engaging and ability to link the local and global scales. The first tool was a GIS visualization of sub-municipal ecological footprints and the second was a more conventional GIS 'atlas'. Focus groups were used to test the two tools. The atlas tool was considerably easier to create, and both tools succeeded in engaging participants. Focus group analysis does suggest however, that while local land-use based maps remain advantageous for exploring specific local and structural issues, local ecological footprints are better able to facilitate local-global linkages.
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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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