MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Choice of Land Use Development Type within Commercial and Industrial Zoning

2014· article· en· W2013692542 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kevin Gingerich, Hanna Maoh, William Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urban Planning and Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinomial logistic regressionZoningEconomies of agglomerationFactory (object-oriented programming)Land useLogitTransport engineeringEconometricsBusinessEconomic geographyGeographyEconomicsComputer scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringStatisticsEconomic growthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper expands upon previous literature for land use and transportation interactions by modeling nonresidential land development in Windsor, Ontario. Separate logit models were created for commercial and industrial development to capture the developer’s choice of development type. These choices were categorized as office, retail, restaurant, and other for commercial developments and warehouse, factory, and other for industrial developments. The development type choice was calibrated using four separate models, as follows: (1) multinomial logit, (2) nested logit, (3) multinomial logit with spatial effects, and (4) nested logit with spatial effects. Significant spatial correlations on decisions for commercial development were observed, illustrating the impact of agglomeration economies. Warehousing developments were particularly influenced by transportation with three positively significant transportation proximity measures. This is especially important since the study area resides within a heavy trade corridor between the United States and Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Urban Planning and DevelopmentSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207