Urban growth: Modelling street network growth in Manhattan (1642–2008) and Barcelona (1260–2008)
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
In this paper, we argue for the case that cities are self-organised complex systems by presenting evidence on positive and reinforcing feedback mechanisms and robust global trends that characterise historical growth patterns. In two case studies; Manhattan and Barcelona, historical stages of urban growth were mapped and analysed. The analyses revealed regularities that may help define the local and global processes that characterise urban growth marked by alternating periods of expansion and pruning in street networks. The global trend marked by a lognormal distribution of segmental integration (closeness) in street networks was consistently restored following planning interventions. The overall street network growth trend appeared to fit an exponential or power law distribution, along with a linear change in fractal dimension. Underlying these global trends, we found evidence for local positive and reinforcing feedback mechanisms; explained by preferential attachment to well-connected street structures, and pruning of weakly integrated local street structures. The findings are likely to improve our understanding of urban growth.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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