MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029889789 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v4n3p235

An Evaluation on Construction Land Intensive Use in Chengdu City

2011· article· en· W2029889789 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
You Zhou, Song Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEvaluation Methods in Various Fields
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalytic hierarchy processUrbanizationLand useEconomic shortageGeographyPopulationResource (disambiguation)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningBusinessEnvironmental scienceEconomicsEconomic growthCivil engineeringOperations researchComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Facing the national conditions that there is a huge number of the population many people but it has very limited land resources. Also the cultivated land resource is shortage. In the process of urbanization, how to improve the land use efficiency? How to intensive utilization of urban land? Discuss these problems for reasonable use limited land resources have important practical significance. What is a city intensive utilization of land? And how to evaluate the urban land use intensive degree? This paper adopts DE Phil method and analytic hierarchy process (ahp), from the present situation of Chengdu city land using, carrying on the intensive use appraisal to Chengdu 05-09 year construction land, including qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis. Draw Chengdu urban land intensive use level in general is increasing trend, Including 2006 intensive degree is maximum, 05 year, 07-09 year are in relatively intensive use phase. Accordingly forward the countermeasures and proposals to increase the level of land intensive use Chengdu city.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicEvaluation Methods in Various FieldsFrench-language works237,207