MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084200092 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.150616

The Role of Placemaking Approach in Revitalising AL-ULA Heritage Site: Linkage and Access as Key Factors

2020· article· en· W3084200092 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed Mohamed Refaat Mohamed, Salwa Samarghandi, Haitham Samir, Mohammed Fadl Mohammed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlacemakingKey (lock)Linkage (software)World heritageEnvironmental planningComputer scienceGeographyArchaeologyComputer securityArchitectureUrban designChemistryTourism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tourists visiting urban heritage sites are guided by constructed itineraries that are shaped by a coherent spatial structure.This article studies the shaping of these itineraries in the heritage city of Al-Ula, using space syntax technique.The main hypothesis is that a placemaking approach of a destination based on its specificities will be able to contribute to the tourism development and place attractiveness.Building on previously developed place-making models, this study focuses on how a well-accessed and linked heritage site can be modelled and evaluated via Space Syntax measures to improve the quality of tourists' spatial experience.As the use of space syntax was found to be a useful technique for analysing tourists' itineraries and the factors that affect it; This study uses it to suggest the most appropriate pedestrian walkway given the various constraints of the existing historic fabric and to identify multiple measures of a destination's assessment.These measures have been noted in the previously developed models.The adopted measures that address access & linkage parameters include connectivity, integration, choice, and legibility.The findings explain that the adoption of access & linkage parameters contribute to revitalising the place in the sense of connecting the entire heritage site and enhancing the visitors experience.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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