Urban Public Health: Is There a Pyramid?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early ecologists identified a pyramidal trophic structure in terms of number, biomass and energy transfer. In 1943, the psychologist Maslow put forward a pyramid model to describe layers of human needs. It is indicated that the pyramid principle is universally applicable in natural, humanistic and social disciplines. Here, we report that a pyramid structure also exists in urban public health (UPH). Based on 18 indicators, the UPH states of four cities (Beijing, Tokyo, New York, and London) are compared from the point of view of five aspects, namely physical health, living conditions, social security, environmental quality, and education and culture. A pyramid structure was found in each city when focusing on 2000-2009 data. The pyramid of Beijing is relatively similar to that of Tokyo, and the pyramids of New York and London are similar to each other. A general development trend in UPH is proposed and represented by different pyramid modes. As a basic conjecture, the UPH pyramid model can be verified and developed with data of more cities over a longer period, and be used to promote healthy urban development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".