Bibliographic record
Abstract
Set within the context of varying traditions of Western urbanism, the U.S. city is considered as a partially autonomous creation, and emphasis is placed on the development of its physical forms during the crucial period of the nineteenth century. Nine distinguishing morphological characteristics such as low density, indistinct urban fringes, and short life of buildings are given special stress. Five broad themes, ranging from the nature of the American environment to the cultural value of land and government, are suggested as possible explanations of American physical urban traits. This is followed by a review of concepts and general findings regarding the three basic components of American urban form: land use ecology, history of building fabric, and cadastral patterns. The essay closes with a more detailed analysis of trends in the last category, given the dearth of conceptual clarity concerning this component. General changes in and representative examples of simple and complex urban ground plans of U.S. cities in the nineteenth century include colonial antecedents, new town foundations, and mature town accretions and modifications both on urban fringes and within densely-built urban cores. Finally, a preliminary division of the century into three morphogenetic periods is offered with a view to stimulating further development of the suggested framework.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".