Geospatial Disaggregation of Population Data in Supporting SDG Assessments: A Case Study from Deqing County, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative assessments and dynamic monitoring of indicators based on fine-scale population data are necessary to support the implementation of the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda and to comprehensively achieve its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, most population data are collected by administrative units, and it is difficult to reflect true distribution and uniformity in space. To solve this problem, based on fine building information, a geospatial disaggregation method of population data for supporting SDG assessments is presented in this paper. First, Deqing County in China, which was divided into residential areas and nonresidential areas according to the idea of dasymetric mapping, was selected as the study area. Then, the town administrative areas were taken as control units, building area and number of floors were used as weighting factors to establish the disaggregation model, and population data with a resolution of 30 m in Deqing County in 2016 were obtained. After analyzing the statistical population of 160 villages and the disaggregation results, we found that the global average accuracy was 87.08%. Finally, by using the disaggregation population data, indicators 3.8.1, 4.a.1, and 9.1.1 were selected to conduct an accessibility analysis and a buffer analysis in a quantitative assessment of the SDGs. The results showed that the SDG measurement and assessment results based on the disaggregated population data were more accurate and effective than the results obtained using the traditional method.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".