MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extended Land-Use Coding System and Its Application in Urban Brownfield Redevelopment: Case Study of Tiexi District in Shenyang, China

2015· article· en· W1898136824 on OpenAlexaff
Bing Xue, Liming Zhang, Yong Geng, Bruce Mitchell, Wanxia Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban Planning and Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsBrownfieldRedevelopmentChinaEnvironmental planningGeographyCivil engineeringEngineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Management of land use related to brownfield redevelopment areas offers opportunities to respond to the challenges from rapid urbanization in China. This paper explores the mixed functions of land use in brownfield redevelopment by using the Tiexi District in Shenyang as a case study and extending the current national land-use coding system. Based on examination of the land-use statistics for the Tiexi District, the authors found that the current coding system is not suitable or precise enough for calculating the areas of land use or its mixed-function-based measurement in a way useful for scientific research and local policy-making. Thus, an extended coding system is proposed, and four examples (two residential communities, one commercial business facility, and one industrial cultural plaza) were selected for empirical study. The extended coding system supplies more-detailed information for understanding the land-use functions in brownfield redevelopment and provides a more-valid database for measuring the social, economic, and environmental implications of redevelopment of brownfield lands. Extended land-use categories also should benefit local decision-making regarding long-term sustainable development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Urban Planning and DevelopmentSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207