Public Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How can one expect a rational growth and development of urban communities without a definite guide line for applying fixed elements on city planning such as Park? Introduction: City Planning; the unified development of cities and their environments. For most of its history, city planning dealt primarily with the regulation of land use and the physical arrangement of city structures, as guided by architectural, engineering, and land-development criteria. In the mid-1920th century it broadened to include the comprehensive guidance of the physical, economic, and social environment of a community.Elements characteristic of city planning include (1) General plans that summarize the objectives of land development; (2) Zoning and subdivision controls that specify permissible land uses, densities, and requirements for streets, utility services, and other improvements;(3) Plans for traffic flow and public transportation; (4) Strategies for economic revitalization of depressed urban and rural areas; (5) Strategies for supportive action to help disadvantaged social groups; and (6) Guidelines for environmental protection and preservation of scarce resources. City planning is conducted by governments on all levels—local, county, regional, state, and federal—and by private groups. It is also a subject of university-level study and Professional societies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.570 | 0.264 |
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".