Beautiful economic features of public landscaping in city beautiful
Bibliographic record
Abstract
City beautiful was a movement of great reach and inspiration, which apparently, was initiated in Chicago in 1893 during the World’s Columbian Exposition. The movement’s premises were artistic, architectural, social, political and economic. Among the artistic and architectural aspects of the city beautiful movement, the provision of high quality public landscaping was of paramount importance. As for the economic rationale behind the movement, we encounter the thinking that a beautiful city should increase its residents’ enjoyment of the city’s attributes and hence attachment to the city, raise real estate values as well as expand city business, with larger sales of city goods and services to local and touristic customers. This paper examines the economic rationale behind the city beautiful movement. We consider a “regional” economy consisting of two adjacent cities, which are identical in many of its attributes, such as the sizes of their populations. We build a general equilibrium model for the agents (consumers and producers) in this economy and demonstrate that the economic rationale behind the city beautiful movement is sound. Each city’s wealth and welfare are proportional to its quality level and a city’s quality level is proportional to the city’s public landscaping quality.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".