Spatial pattern of urban-rural integration in China and the impact of geography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban-rural integration (URI) is a global challenge that is highly related to inequalities, poverty, economic growth, and other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Existing research has evaluated the extent of URI and explored its influencing factors, but urban-rural linkages are seldom incorporated in evaluation systems, and geographical factors are rarely recognized as the influencing factors. We construct a URI framework including regional economy, rural development, urban-rural linkage, and urban-rural gap. Based on a dataset consisting of 1,669 counties in China in 2020, we reveal the spatial pattern of URI and find a high correlation between the spatial pattern of URI and the relief degree of land surface (RDLS). Using structural equation modeling, we discover that topography has direct (−0.18, p < 0.001) and indirect (−0.17, p < 0.001) effects on URI. The indirect negative effects are mediated through the infrastructure, and the combination of localized advantages and modern technical conditions could mitigate the negative impact of topography. Finally, we identify 742 counties as lagging regions in URI, which can be clustered into eight types. Our findings could facilitate policy designing for those countries striving for integrated and sustainable development of urban and rural areas.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".