Spatial Equity in River Access. Measuring the Public Space Potential of Urban Riverbanks in Valdivia, Chile
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
This paper seeks to evaluate the public space potential of riverbanks in the case of the city of Valdivia. The main goal of this research is to understand the relationships that promote or hinder the equitable enjoyment of watercourses and riverbanks. In the case of river access, spatial equity will be considered as the possibility for all inhabitants to access the benefits and resources of the river in their daily lives. Different analytical techniques and quantitative data were used to explore the relationships between socioeconomic characteristics, like socioeconomic groups and land value in the riverbank urban area. This evaluation will be applied by river edge transects. This article is a contribution to the theoretical discussion of social equity in urban riverfronts as an application in the case study since there are few studies on river banks from this perspective. Lack of a comprehensive shore planning in waterfront neighborhoods and of diverse public spaces impedes due public riverside and water use, as well as neglects ecological deterioration processes and social vulnerability.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it