MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132099347

Shanghai Shentong Metro Group: Strategic Transformation through Transit-oriented Development

2022· other· en· W7132099347 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Han Ming Chng, Liman Zhao, John Clarke, Alexander Sleptsov

Bibliographic record

VenueCEIBS Institutional Repository · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal estateSustainable developmentStrategic planningQuality (philosophy)Urban planningReal estate development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case describes Shentong Metro Group's ("Shentong Metro Group" or "the Group") strategic transformation ("Three Transformations") focusing on its transit-oriented development (TOD) between 2009 and 2020. As the world's most extensive urban metro system ("Metro"), its strategic transformation grew from the strategic intent to contribute to Shanghai's vision of improving residents' quality of life while ensuring the Group's sustainable development. The Group successfully planned and implemented its TOD initiative, completing three projects between 2012 and 2019. However, as a Chinese State-owned Enterprise (SOE), the Group faced multiple challenges. First, conceptualizing and implementing the TOD initiative was not easy as Shentong Metro Group has to meet various social, financial, and operational goals. These goals were often vaguely defined (e.g., more environment friendly), while others were incompatible or even contradictory (e.g., increase employment while reducing costs). Second, the Group's core capabilities were in engineering, construction, and operational management of the Metro system. It lacked real estate development and management capabilities that were fundamental to the initiative. Third, the institutional environment and policies relating to TOD in Shanghai were underdeveloped and continually evolving. While the past TOD projects had, to some extent, overcome these challenges, the Group still faces many more ahead of future TOD projects. Some important questions include: What lessons could be gleaned from previous TOD projects? How should the Group fine-tune future TOD initiatives to realize the "Three Transformations?" How could it seize new opportunities based on Shanghai's urban development master plan?

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.223 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCEIBS Institutional RepositoryFrench-language works237,207