Spatial Decision-Making for Dense Built Environments: The Logic Scoring of Preference Method for 3D Suitability Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As many urban areas undergo increasing densification, there is a growing need for methods that can extend spatial analysis and decision-making for three-dimensional (3D) environments. Traditional multicriteria evaluation (MCE) methods implemented within geographic information systems (GIS) can assist in spatial decision-making but are rarely suited for 3D environments. These methods typically use a simplified decision logic that limits the number of evaluation criteria and variability of output suitability scores. In this study, the logic scoring of preference (LSP) as a generalized MCE method is used for 3D suitability analysis to better represent human reasoning through flexible soft computing stepwise decision logic operators. This research: (1) implements the LSP–MCE method to compare the suitability of high-rise residential units in 3D, and (2) performs criteria weight sensitivity and cost–suitability analyses using datasets for the City of Vancouver, Canada. LSP aggregation structures are developed for unique priorities and requirements of three demographic profiles. The results demonstrate the method’s flexibility in representing unique preference sets comprising 2D and 3D criteria, and that cost has a significant effect on residential unit attractiveness in a dense built environment. The proposed 3D LSP–MCE method could be adapted to benefit other stakeholders, such as property tax assessors, urban planners, and developers.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".