fa_IR&سنجش و تحلیل سطوح توسعه یافتگی شهر بناب با استفاده از تکنیک های کمی
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding the Spatial disparities in cities developing strategies to deal with is one of the fundamental pillars of the sustainable development of cities .This paper is a review and analysis of economical, social and physical - spatial and infrastructural structures of Bonab and assessment of level of development by using two quantitative model of Morris and TOPSIS. So that the model results can be controld by another model. , Arc GIS software is used In order to Spatial analysis of quarters and research findings. Nature and methods of the survey is descriptive- analysis and the library – documental method is used to gathering information. different Structures of the city that analyzed by 17 quarter base indicators have suggested that the clear gap in existing structures between different quarters about levels of development, so quarters 2 , 7 and 10 are on the higher level of development and quarters 11 and 12 are deterioratingly disorganized in the city.results show urban managment could not success in fairly distribution of resourses and social services and reducing social unequality in quarters of the city And is necessary that effective steps taken to achieve sustainable development and social justice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".