MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968713473 · doi:10.5539/mas.v5n4p177

GIS- based Land Suitability Analysis Using AHP for Public Parks Planning in Larkana City

2011· article· en· W1968713473 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Imtiaz Ahmed Chandio, Abdul Nasir Matori, Dano Umar Lawal, Soheil Sabri

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Land Suitability Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processGeographic information systemLand useLand-use planningPopulationUrban planningComputer scienceEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningOperations researchGeographyCivil engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringCartographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal locations for public facilities such as public parks are significant issues in the urban planning of Larkana city. Therefore, specifically, Larkana city of Pakistan is selected as the study area where the land suitability model was applied to determine suitable land for public parks. This study was carried out within the framework of an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a multi-criteria evaluation approach by integrating it with the Geographic Information System (GIS). Decision support system software called Expert choice 11.5 was used to calculate the weights based on three alternative scenarios. Computed composite weights were inserted into the spatial analysis function of GIS and produced three scenarios of suitability maps, i.e.: (a) land availability, (b) land value and (c) population density. Hence, based on the analysis and findings made in this research, finding suitable locations using the land suitability model for future park development is highly helpful. Results can be useful in the planning of public facilities and future land use planning in Larkana city.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations109
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicSoil and Land Suitability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207