MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281862163 · doi:10.1016/j.geosus.2022.05.004

Geographically evaluating urban-wildland juxtapositions across 36 urban areas in the United States

2022· article· en· W4281862163 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah J. Hinners, Jeff Rose, Dong-ah Choi, Keunhyun Park

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography and sustainability · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinterpretationMetric (unit)GeographyEconomic geographyMetropolitan areaRegional scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As human populations become concentrated in larger, more intensely urbanized areas connected through globalization, the relationships of cities to their surrounding landscapes are open to social, ecological, and economic reinterpretation. In particular, the value of access to nature in the form of nearby undeveloped wildland to urban populations implies a relatively novel type of synergistic city-region relationship. We develop a robust and replicable metric – the urban-wildland juxtaposition (UWJ) – that quantifies critical dimensions of the juxtaposition of the urbanicity of cities with the quantity of nearby unbuilt wildlands, based on the spatial proximity and relative intensities of these two contrasting system types. Using a distance-decay gravity model, this analysis provides documentation on the calculation of the UWJ and its component metrics, urbanicity (U) and wildland (W) and then presents U, W, and UWJ metrics for 36 urbanized areas representing all regions of the U.S., providing the basis for comparisons and analysis. We explore the potential of the metric by testing correlations with “creative class” employment and public health measures. The UWJ has implications and potential applications for demographic, economic, social, and quality-of-life trends across the U.S. and internationally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeography and sustainabilitySame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207