MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156618797 · doi:10.32003/igge.855123

A NEW DEFINITION OF ‘RURAL AREAS’ FOR THE METROPOLITAN CITY OF ANKARA, TURKEY

2021· article· en· W3156618797 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Coşkun Şerefoğlu

Bibliographic record

Venuelnternational Journal of Geography and Geography Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaQuarter (Canadian coin)Neighbourhood (mathematics)GeographyRegional sciencePopulationRural areaSocioeconomicsCentral cityEconomic growthDemographyEconomicsSociologyMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to create a new definition of ‘rural area’ for the metropolitan city of Ankara in Turkey by developing a rural index. Two models are employed in the paper. One of them is a logit model which identifies the factors affecting population density, and the second one is principal component analysis. The variables used in this study are population density, the number of businesses, the number of summer cottages, the proportion of the population with university degrees, total asphalt roads, the distance to the nearest administrative centre, the number of agricultural holdings, total agricultural land and the number of points of interests (banks, pharmacies, schools, etc.) for each neighbourhood. According to the principal component analysis, classifications are made at three levels: urban quarter, intermediate quarter and rural quarter. This analysis is made on the basis of existing data at the level of the neighbourhood. There is an important drawback of this study: it does not include data regarding income levels of the people since there was no data at the neighbourhood level. But with 10 variables, this study is quite sufficient for defining the rural and urban Ankara, including socio-economic and spatial characters of neighbourhoods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuelnternational Journal of Geography and Geography EducationSame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207