Observed inequality in urban greenspace exposure in China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the important role of green environments playing in healthy cities, the inequality in urban greenspace exposure has aroused growing attentions. However, few comparative studies are available to quantify this phenomenon for cities with different population sizes across a country, especially for those in the developing world. Besides, commonly used inequality measures are always hindered by the conceptual simplification without accounting for human mobility in greenspace exposure assessments. To fill this knowledge gap, we leverage multi-source geospatial big data and a modified assessment framework to evaluate the inequality in urban greenspace exposure for 303 cities in China. Our findings reveal that the majority of Chinese cities are facing high inequality in greenspace exposure, with 207 cities having a Gini index larger than 0.6. Driven by the spatiotemporal variability of human distribution, the magnitude of inequality varies over different times of the day. We also find that exposure inequality is correlated with low greenspace provision with a statistical significance (p-value < 0.05). The inadequate provision may result from various factors, such as dry cold climate and urbanization patterns. Our study provides evidence and insights for central and local governments in China to implement more effective and sustainable greening programs adjusted to different local circumstances and incorporate the public participatory engagement to achieve a real balance between greenspace supply and demand for developing healthy cities.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 it