MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2383081781

Spatial distribution and agglomeration of banks in Xi'an City

2015· article· en· W2383081781 on OpenAlexaff
Qin Si-gan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Northwest Normal University · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomies of agglomerationOrder (exchange)Spatial distributionDistribution (mathematics)Cluster (spacecraft)Economic geographyCommon spatial patternGeographyBusinessComputer scienceMathematicsEconomicsStatisticsEconomic growthFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study on the spatial form and agglomeration help to understand the formation of spatial structure of urban.Taking Xi'an City as a case,based on the ArcGIS software,with the aid of Crimestat software,this paper focuses on the spatial distribution,agglomeration characteristics,cluster districts and its formation mechanism and so on.The results show that,distribution of the banks shows the characteristic of layer distribution,and in each circle,most of the banks are distributed around the city trunk roads.Space of banks present an inverted-U-shaped pattern with the mode of extending to the surrounding areas,and agglomeration trend of banks is the strongest when the distance is 4.1km.At the level of small and medium scale in city,it formed multi-level bank clusters in Xi'an City,among them,number of the first order hot spots is larger than the second order,so does the differences of agglomeration degree,and further analysis found that second order hot spots come along with transportation lines and the direction of long axis parallel.Different spatial scales have different formation mechanism of the bank hot spots.As for formation mechanism,the first order hot spots are mainly affected by the traffic convenience,however,the second order hot spots are more concerned about objects that they serving.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Northwest Normal UniversitySame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207