MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390814563 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1.1981

Analysis Of The Urbanisation Pattern In Haryana In 2011

2023· article· en· W4390814563 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanizationGeographyCensusLakhSocioeconomicsPopulationPopulation densityDominance (genetics)Urban areaAgricultureDemographyBiologyEcologyArchaeologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The urban population of Haryana was 88.2 lakh in 2011. Haryana experienced a significant increase in urbanisation level from 28.92 percent in 2001 to 34.88 percent in the next census enumeration in 2011, resulting in a decadal change of 5.95 percent. Faridabad district has the highest urban population as a percentage of the total population, with 79.51 percent. Additionally, it accounts for 16.27 percent of the state's total urban population. The region of Mewat has the lowest urban population percentage due to the dominance of social traditionalists among the Muslim community in this area. Panipat district has the highest urban density, with 6995.40 persons per sq. km. Among the 21 districts, it is worth noting that 3 districts in Haryana exhibit a relatively lower level of urban density. These districts primarily revolve around agricultural activity. Mewat has the lowest urban density in the state, historically it is a backward and underdeveloped area. The present study aims to describe the spatial pattern of urbanisation in Haryana. The data is derived from the census conducted in 2011.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.211
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.049 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicAgricultural Economics and PracticesFrench-language works237,207