Public spaces in Bangkok and the factors affecting the good public space quality in urban areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Public spaces are an important component of the urban area used to support public activities. The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of public spaces where subdivided into districts of Bangkok city area. A methodology is carry out preliminary site surveying in a 31 public parks based on four main good public space indicators, which including accessibility, imageability, usability and sociability. In this study, the Z-score or standard score is defined as a statistical measurement of the associate of site characteristics score, has been apply to determine quality of public spaces. The results reveal that the all of public spaces are outstanding scores in terms of imageability and usability, and their Z-score values are consistently coherent, especially the high-quality public spaces located in the inner zone of Bangkok. While accessibility and sociability factors are poor quality, their values show on some public spaces that mostly located in the middle and in the outer zones of Bangkok. These results can be helpful to given a priority when managing city facilities in the Bangkok’s urban space and maintaining or improving its public space value.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".