Bibliographic record
Abstract
URBAN LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT Vicente Collado Capilla1 and Sonia Gómez-Pardo Gabaldón21Servicio de Infraestructura Verde y Paisaje. Generalitat Valenciana. Ciutat Administrativa 9 D'Octubre-Torre 1, C/ Castán Tobeñas 77, 46018 Valencia; 2Servicio Territorial de Urbanismo. Provincia de Valencia. Generalitat Valenciana. Prop I, C/ Gregorio Gea, nº 27, 46009 Valencia. E-mail: vcc.arq@gmail.com sgpg.sgpg@gmail.com Key words: urban_landscape, streetcape, landscape_value, andscape_assessment, landscape_preferences. The urban landscape assesment as an important element in the quality of life and the sustainable development of the city constitutes an incipient field of investigation from a new perspective that adds meanings and values. An analysis of the different methodological developments and national and international experiences in the assessment of these landscapes will highlight its importance as a strategic element to improve the quality of the city. It starts from the concept of assessment as a system where tangible and intangible values are considered by the population and the experts. These include among other formal, economic, environmental, social, cultural issues (…) and the relationships between them. Consideration of the opinions of experts from different points of view such as urbanism and architecture but also environment, economy, geography, history, archeology, sociology, social assistance, etc. Together with the preferences expressed by the population regarding the spaces they inhabit on a daily basis and their aspirations, strengthen the sense of belonging and the identity of the place as key elements in the perception of the urban landscapes that allows to contribute new qualities, integration criteria and contemporary values to any type of intervention. These are strategies and intervention procedures that start from the complexity of the city as a system and incorporate the perception that citizens have or will have of their immediate environment. References: Czynska Klara and Pawel Rubinowicz (2015). ´Visual protection Surface method: Cityscape values in context of tall buildings´. SSS10 Proceedings of the 10 th International Space Syntax Symposium. Paquette Sylvain (2008). Guide de gestion des paysages au Québec. Université de Montréal Pallasmaa, Juhani (2005). The Eyes of the Skin. Architecture and the Senses. New York: John Wiley. Ministry of Environment and Energy The National Forest and Nature Agency (1997). International Survey of Architectural Values in the Environment. Denmark . The Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (2013). Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Third Edition, London: Routledge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.030 |
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".