Neighbourhood Land Use and Performance: The Evolution of Neighbourhood Morphology over the 20th Century
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To what extent does the evolution of 20th-century residential area planning and development reflect the profound changes that have affected society over this period? How much was this evolution shaped by successive planning models formulated over the last century? The paper reports on an analysis of the land-use patterns of four neighbourhoods developed at different times over the 20th century. Data originate from field surveys and a systematic measurement of the land uses of the study areas. Findings paint a mixed picture. They show that some societal changes (rising affluence for example) have affected neighbourhood morphology, whereas others (such as cultural diversification) have left few traces. A comparison of different land-use features identifies both the advantages and downsides of each neighbourhood's morphology. It becomes difficult in this light to perceive the evolution of neighbourhood planning as a linear progression towards improved land-use efficiency and quality of life.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it