MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W917879778 · doi:10.3828/tpr.2015.21a

Urban regeneration: new model and new practice The eighth annual International Association for China Planning conference, Guangzhou, China, 21–22 June 2014

2015· article· en· W917879778 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qisheng Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueTown Planning Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanizationChinaUrban planningEconomic growthIndustrialisationStakeholderProsperityPolitical sciencePublic administrationEnvironmental planningGeographyCivil engineeringEngineeringPublic relationsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past decades, urbanisation in China has centred on land development through industrialisation and investment, but it has largely ignored the prosperity and well-being of the people.Liveable cities are not just those with magnificent buildings and infrastructure; they are great places where people want to live. China's recently inaugurated leaders have proposed a new model to actively and prudently enhance the quality of urbanisation through compact, intelligent, and low-carbon development. It symbolises the departure from land-centred urban development to a form of people-oriented urbanisation, as China's Premier, Li Keqiang, has advocated. Quality of life should be one of the key goals for the new model of urbanisation.This new model offers a platform for planning researchers and practitioners to tackle urbanisation challenges, such as social equity, environment, energy, ecological and historic preservation, affordable housing, and externalities of mega cities. Further, a people-oriented urbanisation approach calls for public participation and stakeholder engagement in the planning process.The eighth annual conference of the International Association for China Planning (IACP) was held in Guangzhou, China, 21-22 June 2014. It was organised by IACP and South China University of Technology (SCUT), co-organised by the Guangdong Urban & Rural Planning and Design Institute, Guangzhou KEY CITY Planning & Survey Technological Co. Ltd., Guangzhou Teamzero Architecture and Planning Co. Ltd., Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Peking University-Lincoln Institute Center (PLC) for Urban Development and Land Policy, and Ohio State University. It was also sponsored by the American Planning Association (APA), Case Studies on Transport Policy, Springer, Travel Behaviour & Society, and the Urban Planning Society of China.The conference brought together more than 250 planning scholars and practitioners from around the world, including China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Australia, the United States , Canada, Great Britain, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Turkey, India, and Ghana, among others. During the conference, 169 papers were presented across 36 parallel sessions, as well as six keynote presentations. The conference also included the second Dean's Forum on urban planning.Opening sessionThe conference had an opening ceremony on 21 June (Figure 1), with IACP Chair Qisheng Pan (Texas Southern University) and Dean Yimin Sun, the Executive Deputy Dean of the School of Architecture at SCUT, co-presiding. Academician Jingtang He (SCUT) welcomed all those attendees and delivered introductory remarks on China's urban planning and design process. Qisheng Pan greeted the conference delegates, reviewed IACP's history and missions, addressed the conference theme and objectives, and also introduced keynote speakers and distinguished guests. Yimin Sun also gave the audience a warm welcome and introduced the diverse academic offerings and outstanding research accomplishments of the School of Architecture, SCUT. Two internationally renowned scholars and one chief planner were each invited to give a keynote speech at the opening session.Professor Robert Bullard (Texas Southern University) delivered the first keynote speech of the conference, entitled 'Environmental and sustainability challenges in the United States and China: assessing impacts using an equity lens'. As one of the pioneers addressing environmental equity issues and the father of environmental justice, Bullard examined environmental challenges in the United States using a social equity lens. He also assessed the efficacy of using such a frame in order to understand the growing environmental and sustainability challenges in China. Bullard argued that millions of Americans continue to live in unsafe and unhealthy physical environments, despite significant improvements in environmental protection over the past few decades. …

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.018
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTown Planning ReviewSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207