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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".