The Crossing as a New Approach for the Urban Transformation of Traditional Cities Towards the Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of urban transformations has attracted the attention of researchers as it is one of the basic issues through which cities can be transformed towards sustainability. A specific level of transformation levels according to a philosophical concept known as a crossing. This article has relied on a specific methodology that aims to find a new approach for urban transformation based on the crossing concept. This concept derives from philosophical entrances based on the concepts of (being, process, becoming, and integration). Four levels have been for the crossing are (normal, ascending, leap, and descending). Each of these levels includes specific characteristics that distinguish it. The results showed that there is no descending crossing in the study area and that four indicators that have achieved leap crossing are: (coverage ratio, compactness, Effectiveness of the pedestrian and bicycle movement, and proximity. As for ascending crossing achieved in three indicators are: mix land use, blocks' length, and connectivity, as for normal crossing achieved in three indicators are: diversity of building heights, population density, and housing density. These results help in making the planning decision to transform traditional Karbala city into a sustainable city, by giving priority in development to the indicators that have achieved ascending crossing because it takes less time and effort to reach the leap crossing in comparison with indicators that have achieved normal crossing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".