Spatiotemporal analysis of urban environment based on the vegetation–impervious surface–soil model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores a spatiotemporal comparative analysis of urban agglomeration, comparing the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) of Canada and the city of Tianjin in China. The vegetation–impervious surface–soil (V–I–S) model is used to quantify the ecological composition of urban/peri-urban environments with multitemporal Landsat images (3 stages, 18 scenes) and LULC data from 1985 to 2005. The support vector machine algorithm and several knowledge-based methods are applied to get the V–I–S component fractions at high accuracies. The statistical results show that the urban expansion in the GTHA occurred mainly between 1985 and 1999, and only two districts revealed increasing trends for impervious surfaces for the period from 1999 to 2005. In contrast, Tianjin has been experiencing rapid urban sprawl at all stages and this has been accelerating since 1999. The urban growth patterns in the GTHA evolved from a monocentric and dispersed pattern to a polycentric and aggregated pattern, while in Tianjin it changed from monocentric to polycentric. Central Tianjin has become more centralized, while most other municipal areas have developed dispersed patterns. The GTHA also has a higher level of greenery and a more balanced ecological environment than Tianjin. These differences in the two areas may play an important role in urban planning and decision-making in developing countries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".