Calculation of Ecological Footprints and Analysis of Sustainable Development of Lanzhou in 2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The measure of sustainable development has always been an important but difficult subject.The ecological footprint is initiated by William E.Rees,Canadian ecological economist,and Wackernagel Mathis,the former's postgraduate. It is a new method includes biophysical assessments and get rid of some defects of the other models to quantify and analysis sustainable development,on account of its scientific theory,innovative thoughts and wide adaptability,it becoming more and more popular in recent years.Human consume the products and services of nature,not only economic activities and resources used on life,ecological aggradations capacity of assimilating waste materials,but also many non_consuming life_supporting services,every one of us has an impact on the earth.Does the human load stay with in global carrying capacity The concept of ecological footprint has been designed to answer this question.It evaluates human activity effect on the global ecosystem by quantifying the biologically productive areas necessary to maintain human survival.With the Ecological Footprint method,the Ecological Footprint of Lanzhou region in 2002 is calculated and analyzed.According to the calculation,the ecological deficit of Lanzhou is 1.69288,ecological footprint is 7 times of the ecological capacity.It shows that Lanzhou is in a unsustainable status.At the same time,according to the analysis on result of calculation,puts forward corresponding suggestions of realizing sustainable development.Since Ecological Footprint has been proposed,it used widely in the whole world,country and regional sustainable development study.Through the practical application in the area of Lanzhou,quantified the pressure and effect of city economic activities on natural ecosystems in Northwest 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".