Requalifying the Irbid Refugee Camp: Towards Integrated Urban Development in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of refugee camps in Jordan stems from a complex combination of political and socioeconomic factors, resulting in lasting consequences.The main challenge lies in the growth and integration of spontaneous urban settlements within the larger urban framework, which has remained persistent over time.This hinders the proper integration and adaptation of the camps to their surrounding metropolitan contexts.The absence of comprehensive methods to include these refugee camps in broader urban development plans exacerbates the situation, perpetuating the existing untenable conditions.To address this issue, the study gathered data from various sources to highlight the current situation and identify the problems that need to be resolved before considering future solutions.The collected data describe the social and economic structure of the Irbid Refugee Camp, with a specific focus on the camp's construction.The research employed a mixed approach to data collection, including questionnaires administered to camp residents, interviews conducted with both inhabitants and policymakers to gain a comprehensive understanding of their needs and perspectives, and observational methods to study interactions between inhabitants and the surrounding environment.Data analysis reveals that refugee camps are disproportionately located on the outskirts of cities, underscoring the importance of integrating the camps into the city's spatial, social, and political structures.To address this, new spatial configurations are required to accommodate changing needs, services, and infrastructure, including the establishment of warehouses.Key findings from the analysis emphasize the promotion of integration between the Irbid Refugee Camp and the municipal fabric, the necessity of investing in infrastructure that connects the camp to the city center, and the equitable allocation of resources and services between refugee groups and host populations, thus reducing socioeconomic disparities.The research highlights the need for a masterplan that can address the demands and aspirations of the local community while ensuring long-term planning for the city of Irbid.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| 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".