Population predictions for the world’s largest cities in the 21st century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We project populations to 2100 for the world’s larger cities. Three socioeconomic scenarios with various levels of sustainability and global cooperation are evaluated, and individual “best fit” projections made for each city using global urbanization forecasts. In 2010, 757 million people resided in the 101 largest cities – 11 per cent of the world’s population. By the end of the century, world population is projected to range from 6.9 billion to 13.1 billion, with 15 per cent to 23 per cent of people residing in the 101 largest cities (1.6 billion to 2.3 billion). The disparate effects of socioeconomic pathways on regional distribution of the world’s 101 largest cities in the 21st century are examined by changes in population rank for 2010, 2025, 2050, 2075 and 2100. Socioeconomic pathways are assessed based on their influence on the world’s largest cities. Two aspects of the projections raise concerns about reliability: the unlikely degree of growth of cities suggested for Africa and the growth of cities in coastal settings (and likely global immigration). Trends and the effect of sustainable development on regional distribution of large cities throughout the 21st century are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".