Sustainable Development of the Engineering Geological Environment of Urban Areas: Transition from Theory to Practical Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensuring the safety of people's vital activities is one of the primary tasks of engineering environment research. The study and assessment of georisks is especially relevant for ur-ban areas, which are complex natural and technical systems with their own laws of existence and changes, which are caused by natural and man-made factors. The purpose of the article is to ana-lyse the modern theory and practice of making urban planning decisions, especially when placing responsible industrial, energy, and transport facilities; discussion of the need to consider the resource stability of natural systems, the peculiarities of the production of design and research works in conditions of increased georisks in connection with urbanisation and global climate changes. The main engineering and geological processes in urban areas, and their impact on the ecological situation under the conditions of global changes are considered. The main theoretical provisions for assessing the degree of impacts and associated georisks are outlined; a number of types of uncertainty in urban planning activity are characterised: natural, conceptual, strategic, methodical, temporal, and parametric. A critical analysis of the existing practice of making the most important decisions regarding the development of territories, placement, and construction of transport facilities was performed. Methods of developing a number of schemes of engineering-geological and ecological zoning of urbanised territories are proposed, in which categories are distinguished according to resistance to various types of impacts: floods, inundation, groundwater flooding, landslides, mudslides, snow avalanches, karst and suffocation processes, soil subsidence, etc., on the basis of which should be developed insurance risk assessment system. Examples of the assessment of the risk of engineering-geological conditions leaving the permissible regulatory state under some negative processes are given. Practical recommendations for solving the problem of sustainable development of urban areas are provided.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".