A Decision Tree Analysis Approach to Traditional and Modern Design Elements in Rural Landscaping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the connotation of traditional and modern design elements in rural landscape beautification, multi-dimensional data cube mining method is adopted to construct the research data set of this paper.According to the ratio of 2:8, the data set is divided into test set and training set.The data of traditional and modern design elements are used as inputs, substituted into the decision tree model for training and classification, and the CART algorithm is used to construct a decision tree model for traditional and modern design elements in rural landscape beautification.Combining the dataset and the model in this paper, the simulation analysis of traditional and modern design elements in rural landscape beautification is carried out.The data show that based on the Gini index calculation formula of CART algorithm, it is concluded that the Gini index of X9 (0.9581) is the largest, so X9 is chosen as the root node for decision making, and the decision tree is derived downward until the leaf node, and the decision tree oriented to the countryside landscaping is obtained, and the rural landscape beautification scheme is induced based on the results of the analysis and the effect of the rural landscaping is found to have the difference between the before and after mean values of 3.36 ( 20.11-16.75=3.36),while there is a significant difference between the two, similarly, there is also a significant difference in the building living comfort above.This study enhances the effect of rural landscape beautification, which is of great significance in promoting rural revitalisation and architectural design development.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".