Evaluation of Compaction Index to Achieve Sustainable Urban Development Using AHP: Two Case Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The search for an ideal city, which can express both technological advantages and healthy spirit of rural life based on enlightening ideas of social justice, has long been the major concern of most philosophers, social reformers, writers, architects and urban planners. Urban form is known as a source of environmental problems. The emergence of "sustainable development" as a common term has raised many discussions on urban forms. Different types of urban forms (corridor, compact, marginal and edge) have been evaluated for sustainable urban development. It is revealed that compact city is more sustainable than other forms. There is disagreement on potential effects of compaction. Using archival studies, surveys and questionnaires, the author evaluates the environmental sustainability of Yousefabad as a dense neighborhood, compared to Garnet Hill, by AHP to prove that compaction alone cannot bring the expected advantages. To achieve advantages of compaction in urban design, the author emphasizes that four basic criteria of compact city, density, sustainable transportation, mixed land-use and diversity, should be interrelated.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".