A Study of Land Reclamation in China Based on Literature Data Statistics——Time,Area and Field Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2078 literatures were selected from Academic Journal Database of China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database takingreclamationas the key wordsand then sorted,classified and accounted. This paper analyses these statistical literatures according to the time development,regional distribution,content of research,using qualitative and quantitative,classificatory and statistical research methods. The results showed that:( 1) The development of China's land reclamation is closely related to the major national relevant policies,which can be divided into five stages.( 2) The land reclamation research of foreign countries is mainly concentrated on the United States,Russia,Australia,Canada and other countries. The field of land reclamation research in China covers a wide area,but is mainly concentrated on mining provinces( cities),especially those closely related to the distribution of coal bases.( 3) The paper describes the status quo of China's land reclamation research according to these literatures which is divided into 11 types and points out the need to strengthen the study of land reclamation standards,monitoring,supervision,research experiments and demonstrations( such as field scientific research bases),and so on.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".