Tendencies of Recreational Landscape Formation in Southeastern Baltic Seaside Resorts after 1990. Case of the Palanga Resort
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
Abstract The goal is to analyze the tendencies of the formation of recreational landscape of the Palanga resort and, after reviewing the planning experiences of other south-eastern Baltic resorts, present measures for landscape optimization. To achieve this, an analysis of changes of the seaside recreational landscape after 1990, the current state of resorts, scientific literature, and seaside resort planning was conducted. After assessing the changes in the recreational landscape, it has been noticed that for a quarter of the last century, planning of seaside resorts was aimed at attracting and accommodating an increasing number of holidaymakers, which caused an ever increasing need to intensify the construction in the territories, increasing the scale of buildings, and urbanizing natural territories without taking into consideration the existing natural and cultural environment. Natural, anthropogenic and social factors are affecting the recreational landscape of seaside resorts, which are important in the context of resort development and regional development. The article presents the means of Palanga resort optimization based on these factors.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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