Evaluation of Intracity Districts’ Separateness and Integrity (A Case Study of St. Petersburg)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The territory’s isolation and integrity are recognized by jurists as criteria for determining the municipalities’ boundaries. Analyzing the geographic studies of the innercity territory morphology, territorial identity and the local communities development potential relationship, the authors come to conclusion that these criteria are not supplied with measurement methodology. As a result the studies are limited by extreme characteristics polygons. The article proposes a methodology for assessing of intracity territories’ isolation and integrity. Considering pedestrian links as the basis of intracity municipal communications, the authors develop a methodology based on the pedestrian graph, which makes more sensitive estimates comparing with transport methods. The indicators of isolation and integrity, as well as the integral indicator are calculated for the territorial units of St. Petersburg–administrative and municipal districts. The authors come to the conclusion that intracity district’s isolation and integrity are in a weak negative relationship with each other and are set by the urban settlement and development policy. According to the integral assessment, island administrative districts and peripheral municipal districts with the 1970s large quarter buildings demonstrate the greatest compliance with the isolation and integrity principles. The authors announce a study of the territory morphology influence on the local self-government development level based on the data presented in this article.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".