Sustainability in communities: conditions and strategies for a new planning paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communities are recognizing their crucial role in developing and implementing sustainability policy. Integrated community sustainability planning is an emerging field for both theorists and practitioners, with current emphasis on Canadian mandates for sustainability. This research aimed to improve understanding of the conditions and processes by which communities in Oregon, USA are embedding sustainability ethics and community participation into decision-making and action. The research began with collective action as a premise for sustainability community development and developed a conceptual framework of important community conditions through grounded theory work in Corvallis Oregon. The research goal aimed to address the question, under what conditions and through what design processes are communities in Oregon, USA initiating integrated community sustainability planning? Follow up investigations in Ashland and Lincoln City, Oregon supported the initial findings of critical community conditions, which include civic engagement, history of citizen participation in local government, commitment to the community, and sustainability awareness. Results indicate that local capacity, defined as the local government’s willingness and ability to engage with the community, is the primary sticking point for comprehensive sustainability planning in Ashland. These communities represent initial case studies into the actions small communities in the US are taking to address sustainability and resiliency at the local level.
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 | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".