Questionnaire Investigation on the Needs at Fuji City and its Sensibility Analysis Utilizing Bayesian Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shopping streets at local city in Japan became old and are generally declining. In this paper, we handle the area rebirth and/or regional revitalization of shopping street. We focus on Fuji city in Japan. Four big festivals are held at Fuji city. Many people visit these festivals including residents in that area. Therefore a questionnaire investigation to the residents and visitors is conducted during these periods in order to clarify residents and visitors’ needs for the shopping street, and utilize them to the plan building of the area rebirth and/or regional revitalization of shopping street. These are analyzed by using Bayesian Network. Sensitivity analysis is also conducted. As there are so many items, we focus on “The image of the surrounding area at this shopping street” and pick up former half and make sensitivity analysis in this paper. The analysis utilizing Bayesian Network enabled us to visualize the causal relationship among items. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis brought us estimating and predicting the prospective visitors. These are utilized for constructing a much more effective and useful plan building. We have obtained fruitful results. To confirm the findings by utilizing the new consecutive visiting records would be the future works to be investigated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".