MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547884043 · doi:10.1080/17445647.2016.1237898

Population and age structure in Hungary: a residential preference and age dependency approach to disaggregate census data

2016· article· en· W2547884043 on OpenAlexaff
Sen Li, Linda Juhász-Horváth, Paula A. Harrison, László Pintér, Mark Rounsevell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Maps · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsInternational Institute for Sustainable Development
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsCensusGeographyPopulationCartographyDistribution (mathematics)DemographyRegional scienceSociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a simple model to disaggregate age structured population census data to a 1-km grid for Hungary. A dasymetric approach was used to predict the spatial distribution of population in different age groups by distinguishing residential preferences (in relation to accessible social, economic and green amenities) for working age groups (15–29, 30–49 and 50–64) and population dependencies for children and the elderly (aged 0–14 and 65+). By using open-access land cover data and fine-level population census data as inputs, the model predicts the likely spatial distribution of population and age structure for Hungary in 2011. The resulting map and gridded data provide information to support spatial planning of residential development and urban infrastructure. The model is less data-demanding than most existing approaches, but provides greater power for describing population patterns. It can also be used to create scenarios of future demographic change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MapsSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207