MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047275451 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.150515

The Center of City Function in Guiyang, China: An Evaluation with Emerging Data

2020· article· en· W3047275451 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jun Zhang, Xiong He

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaCenter (category theory)Data centerFunction (biology)Environmental scienceGeographyMeteorologyComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the center of city function has increasingly come into notice of the scholars, conforming to their purpose to describe the spatial structure of the city center more comprehensively.In this study, points of interest (POI) served as observation data to construct a framework for identifying and evaluating city function centers.As a typical plateau mountain city in western China, Guiyang possesses extremely special research value in urban planning and construction.The results of this study show that: the number of city function centers increased from 2016 to 2018, which manifested as polycentricity; their changes can be described in terms of quantity, pattern, and location; their morphological types were "relatively concentrated" and "relatively dispersed" in the process of urban evolution; and the types of location change were mainly displacement and splitting; spatial statistical analysis indicates that the change trend of city function centers will also be polycentric growth.In addition, the results of the study will have a positive impact on the subsequent urban planning and construction of Guiyang.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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