MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2213807218 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v10-n5-685-700

Environmental practice and its effect on the sustainable development of eco-industrial parks in China

2015· article· en· W2213807218 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ying Qu, M. Li, Lijie Qin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Industrial Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSustainable developmentBusinessChinaEnvironmental economicsAnalytic hierarchy processEnvironmental resource managementEco-efficiencyEnvironmental planningGovernment (linguistics)SustainabilityEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After more than a decade of development, eco-industrial parks (EIPs) have made significant progress in saving resources and protecting the environment in China. Meanwhile, many problems have emerged, such as poor stability, poor profitability and weak eco-industrial chains, which have impeded the EIP's sustainable development. Faced with variable environmental practices and limited resources and capital, EIPs need to address suitable environmental practices seriously to configure resources reasonably and ultimately realize sustainable development. Therefore, based on an analysis of the elements of environmental practice and sustainable development level, this article aims at identifying those environmental practices that can improve the sustainable development level of EIPs and to analyze the impact of those different environmental practices on the sustainable development level of EIPs using factor analysis and analytic hierarchy process. The results could provide theoretical guidance and reference for decision-making to Chinese government and administration committees of EIPs for choosing and implementing environmental practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicSustainable Industrial EcologyFrench-language works237,207