Industrial- or Residential-Dominant Development? A Comparative Analysis of Maritime Industrial Development Areas of Liaoning, China
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
This paper adopts a case-comparison method to study the spatial layout features of maritime industrial development areas (MIDAs) in Liaoning, China, in reference to similar projects in other Asian countries including Japan, South Korea and Singapore. Our study focuses on industry-city spatial relationship, land position and proportion, coastline utilization intensity and industrial land organization. We show that supplementary residential and recreational land has primarily occupied the high-quality coastlines, and resulted in limited industrial access to marine resources. Our theoretical and empirical analyses connect this feature to local government finances, purchase restriction policy and an investment-driven surge in demand for coastal residential housing. Many areas now exhibit low utilization of industrial land accompanied by the emergence of “ghost cities” phenomenon, which are critical factors that the policymakers should consider in the future planning of coastal development. Interviews with local developers, housing authority personnel, relocated employees and residents confirm our findings. We conclude with policy recommendations for promoting long-term sustainable development in the coastal area.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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