MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2309340080 · doi:10.14288/1.0099991

The effect of spatial layout and social similarity on urban neighbouring

2010· article· en· W2309340080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary-Rose Treasurywala

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPlace Attachment and Urban Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)GeographyComputer scienceCartographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis presents a detailed study of the effect of functional distance and social similarity on the greetings and visits between contiguous neighbours. Functional distance is predicted to have an inverse relation with greetings while social similarity is predicted to have a direct relation with visiting between contiguous neighbours. In accordance with previous researchers, functional distance is predicted to have an inverse relation with visiting only for socially similar, but not for socially dissimilar, neighbours. Women, whose single family houses are located throughout metropolitan Vancouver, were interviewed in the summer months. Similarity in six characteristics, which were employed separately, in specific combinations, and all together, was determined for each respondent-contiguous neighbour pair. This pair was the unit of analysis. Somers' d was used to test the direction and strength of the relationships. A calculation of Goodman and Kruskal's gamma substantiated the deductions which were based on Somers' d values. It was found that these contiguous neighbours tend not to have any form of contact with each other. The functional distance between neighbour pairs was found, as predicted, to be consistently negatively related to greetings while their similarity was consistently positively related to visiting. Functional distance was negatively, and more strongly, related to casual visiting for similar rather than dissimilar pairs, but the strength of its association with planned visiting was the same regardless of similarity. Some limitations of this research are outlined with suggestions for improvements in future endeavours in this area.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicPlace Attachment and Urban StudiesFrench-language works237,207