MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221018098 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.170132

The Transformation of Compact Rural Human Settlements in South Africa - The Case of Elim in Limpopo

2022· article· en· W4221018098 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daphne Ntlhe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Economic Development and Planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZoningUrbanizationHuman settlementLand useSpatial planningGeographyUrban planningStatuteLand-use planningEnvironmental planningEconomic growthLawPolitical scienceCivil engineeringArchaeologyEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land-use change entails changes in existing land use usually guided by spatial planning laws and the pollical influence of the state. The paper examined the impact of spatial strategies, laws, and policies on land-use change in Elim. A qualitative case study method was used to achieve the study’s purpose. Historical review of laws and satellite images of Elim in 1964, 1985, 1993, 2002, 2014, and 2020 were used to identify the impact of the rules and the extent of the land-use changes from 1964 to 2020. The study revealed that apartheid laws for creating exclusive homelands and townships for blacks significantly impacted Elim’s spatial pattern. The statutes produced displaced urbanization in homelands represented by large townships, betterment policy modernized traditional villages into compact villages with modernist characteristics, and Integrated Development Planning managed to integrate urban and rural areas to transform Elim into a mixed-use neighborhood. The analysis demonstrated that integrated and spatial development plans could guide development without zoning in rural areas, particularly in communal areas, to promote integration and create mixed-use neighborhoods. Modernist planning adopted a top-down approach, while the integrated development strategy embraces a bottom-up approach. The study will assist planners and lawmakers improve the spatial planning process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicLocal Economic Development and PlanningFrench-language works237,207