Planning a mega-city's future: <i>An evaluation of Shanghai's municipal land-use plan</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a detailed evaluation of Shanghai's municipal land-use plan (SMLUP). It fills a gap in the literature that has examined Shanghai's urban growth and economic restructuring, but has neglected to evaluate the city's municipal plan. This article sets the evaluation of the SMLUP within the administrative and institutional context of the preparation of comprehensive land-use plans in China as well as the extensive literature on Shanghai's urban spatial structure. It identifies a number of strengths and weaknesses of the SMLUP. Overall, the SMLUP was found to be a rather technical document that attempts to balance the supply of agricultural and development land. The discussion traces the weaknesses to poorly defined planning terms and concepts within the plan, as well as narrow regulations governing the creation of comprehensive land-use plans. Inconsistencies are also found between policies and objectives contained within the SMLUP and the Comprehensive Plan of Shanghai. The paper concludes that a more comprehensive and holistic plan evaluation framework is required if Chinese city-regions are to be governed by better land-use plans.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".