Understanding Place Identity with Generative AI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers are constantly leveraging new forms of data with the goal of understanding how people perceive the built environment and build the collective place identity of cities. Latest advancements in generative artificial intelligence (AI) models have enabled the production of realistic representations learned from vast amounts of data. In this study, we aim to test the potential of generative AI as the source of textual and visual information in capturing the place identity of cities assessed by filtered descriptions and images. We asked questions on the place identity of a set of 31 global cities to two generative AI models, ChatGPT and DALL-E2. Since generative AI has raised ethical concerns regarding its trustworthiness, we performed cross-validation to examine whether the results show similar patterns to real urban settings. In particular, we compared the outputs with Wikipedia data for text and images searched from Google for image. Our results indicate that generative AI models have the potential to capture the collective image of cities that can make them distinguishable. This study is among the first attempts to explore the capabilities of generative AI in understanding human perceptions of the built environment. It contributes to urban design literature by discussing future research opportunities and potential limitations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".