Spatial Logic and the Distribution of Open and Green Public Spaces in Hanoi: Planning in a Dense and Rapidly Changing City
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vietnam recently started to recognise the multiple benefits brought by open and green spaces to urban population and environment. In this paper, we analyse the provision of open and green spaces (parks, public gardens and lakeshores) in Hanoi. Using a model proposed by Talen (2010), we examine the spatial evolution of these spaces between 2000 and 2010, their level of proximity to residential units, and the extent to which their distribution matches social needs (defined in terms of population density). We find that while the absolute number and surface area of parks and public gardens has increased significantly in Hanoi, these new public spaces are mainly built on the city’s newly urbanised periphery. As a result, in 2010, only 15% of Hanoi’s residential blocks had access to a park or public garden within a reasonable walking (1000m) or biking distance (2500m). Moreover, the city’s densest residential areas have only access to relatively small gardens and parks, resulting in overcrowding. Lakeshores, however, represent an opportunity to enhance access to open and green spaces in Hanoi due to their spatial distribution. We conclude by advocating for the integration of spatial measures of proximity and needs into Hanoi’s public space planning policy framework.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it