Planning Interventions as a Major Driving Force for Transforming Unitary Habitats into Multi-habitats in the Ladkrabang District of Bangkok Metropolitan Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planning interventions may lead to both intended and unintended results. A change of focus in planning interventions over time may lead to non-symbiotic relationships among different elements in an urban area. This paper examines the outcomes of three decades of planning interventions in an outer district of the Bangkok Metropolitan area. To corroborate the overall transformation, the paper analyzes the effects of each planning intervention during the successive planning periods. The transformation is analyzed in relation to three major factors; (1) land-use changes, (2) occupational changes, and (3) residential development. The analysis confirms that the change in focus of successive planning and development interventions is a main driving force responsible for the transformation of unitary habitats to multi-habitats in the studied urban area. Although this outcome of the planning interventions is unanticipated, this study argues that progressive change in focus can be an effective strategy to build symbiotic and pluralistic societies.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".