Intra-quarter development as a unique component of urban environment in the St. Petersburg historical center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The living environment, which constitutes a significant part of the historical center development in St. Petersburg, is assumed to be a unique object of urban planning activity, since its potential is exceptional, but the strategy for further use has not yet been determined. The active usage of huge residential areas in the city center is hindered due to the uncertainty of property relations, some missteps in the area of the cultural heritage conservation system, defects in the system of land use and land tenure. Taking into consideration that the intra-quarter environment has been hardly ever studied, the authors propose using the stagnation period to «stock-take» the quarters of the St. Petersburg center. In connection with the envisaged orientation of the city transport system to increasing the role of pedestrian flows in the city center, the role of the unique system of passage yards is emphasized and it is proposed to take it into account as an integral component of the city center as UNESCO historical heritage object. The decisive role of intra-quarter communications for the formation of urban development characteristic types is substantiated. It is pointed out that in order to assess the mass development potential in the center of St. Petersburg, it is necessary to provide each historical quarter with a corresponding certificate and organize a monitoring of possible evolutions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".