MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995810754 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n6p19

The Differential Analysis on Intensive Use Efficiency of Construction Land

2012· article· en· W1995810754 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economic and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisConnotationChinaResource (disambiguation)Differential (mechanical device)Land useEnvironmental resource managementProduction (economics)BusinessEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsComputer scienceGeographyEconomicsCivil engineeringMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land is the base of survival and development of human being. Limited land resource is the power that stimulates us to intensively use land. According to the connotation of intensive use of construction land, we select 5 indices which are cogent and effective. Then through Data Envelopment Analysis(DEA), we estimate the different efficiency of intensive use of construction land in China and its 31 provincial regions. The result is that in these 31 regions, only Heilongjiang and Shanghai are efficient, and the other DMUs are inefficient. At last, based on this result, we provide some relevant advices.

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.

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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.185 · 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