Research on Historical Spatial Evolution Assessment System and Protection Management Strategy of Ancient Cities Based on Spatial Data Mining Technology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today’s society, ancient cities, as important components of historical and cultural heritage and urban development, are receiving increasing attention for their protection, utilization, and management. This research mainly focuses on the construction of an evaluation system for the spatial historical evolution of ancient city streets and the corresponding management strategies. Through a comprehensive evaluation of the spatial issues and characteristics of the ancient city streets, a multi-dimensional evaluation system for the historical evolution of the ancient city space with a total of 13 indicator factors, including historicity, is constructed. Taking Suzhou Ancient City as an example for empirical analysis, five typical types of ancient city streets are identified. Finally, corresponding update strategies are proposed for different types, especially the utilization of biomaterials and the design of plant landscapes, providing more innovative and sustainable management suggestions for the revitalization planning of the ancient city.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it