Research on Mianyang Positioning and Economic Development Strategy in Chengdu-Chongqing Double City Economic Circle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of a two-city economic circle in the Chongqing area is conducive to leading the development of western China and expanding the new space for national economic growth; it is conducive to giving play to the unique location advantages of connecting southwest and northwest, connecting domestic and foreign countries, and promoting the Yangtze River Economic Belt and the Silk Road economy The belt strategy fits and interacts; it is conducive to exploring a new urbanization model in the western region, and guiding 100 million people to urbanization in the central and western regions. It is a key area for the country to promote new urbanization and occupies an important position in China’s regional development pattern. This study starts from the latest research results of the Chengdu-Chongqing Double-City Economic Circle and combines the status quo of Mianyang’s development. Based on the latest research results of the Chengdu-Chongqing Shuang cheng Economic Circle, combined with the current development of Mianyang, this study uses three methods of comparison, SWOT and theoretical empirical analysis to discuss the positioning of Mianyang in the Chengdu-Chongqing Shuang cheng Economic Circle and make recommendations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".