MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036886032 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.150415

Towards a Modern Design of Undeveloped City Using a Spatial Modelling Analysis; a Case Study of Irbid City in Jordan

2020· article· en· W3036886032 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zaid A.O. Aldeek, Mahmoud Z. Mistarihi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyArchitectural engineeringCivil engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past, Jordanian cities were just small centers, with no planning systems.Today, many of these cities have expanded in response to emergency urbanization and ongoing political crises.The resulting development has irreversibly modified the urban landscape.Studies of urban conditions in Jordanian cities, particularly, Irbid, are key to understanding how rapid growth has altered its architectural and urban landscape.This paper focuses on the problem of urban regeneration and requalification to identify the variables driving informal development in Irbid.Understanding the real factors, as illegal and abusive land use, at play versus unnatural development where classical approaches are not suitable for understanding the problem.Highlighting policies, strategies, and tools needed to identify transformation trends of cities like Irbid, to produce hypothesis of sustainable and suitable development.Results show that to propose innovative hypothesis we must first research evolution mechanisms and their transformation effects.Using tools that define conditions of under developing that govern transformations in our case study.A spatial modelling would be an interpretation model that combines effects and causes, of the cited under developing situation in future projection of sustainable development.The proposed spatial modelling, "Integral Planning Model" (IPM), throw investigations and interviews and simulations try to build a parametric matrix processing able to help the planners and policy makers to put up suitable strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicUrban Design and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207