MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159386992

Influencing Factors for Developing Underground Pedestrian Systems in Cities

2011· article· en· W2159386992 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jianqiang Cui, Andrew Allan, Dong Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianChinaGeographyTransport engineeringBuilt environmentBusinessEnvironmental planningNatural (archaeology)Civil engineeringEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underground pedestrian systems (UPS) have been developed worldwide especially in the central areas of mega cities. They are integrated with subway systems, underground shopping streets and malls, and the basement of department stores in various forms and integrated with commerce, transport, retailing and public usage in urban functions. In cities with severe weather conditions such as Toronto and Montreal in Canada, UPS provided a weather-controlled walking environment. In dense urban settings such as Tokyo, Japan and Shanghai, China, UPS provides a comprehensive usage of urban space that is comparable to that which occurs at the street level. The natural and built environments affect the utilization of UPS. Environmental factors are discussed to demonstrate how UPS have developed and functioned. Based on previous research, this paper has selected 19 cities as cases studies to explore the decisive factors of natural and built environments that have influenced UPS development specifically with regard to four aspects namely climate, subway construction, land usage and economic environment. The research revealed the extent of prevalence of these four aspects in cities and determined the differentiating factors of the natural and built environments that resulted in the establishment of UPS. SPSS was applied to test the differences between developing and advanced economies in relation to the prevalence of these factors. 1.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.137 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia)Same topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207