Application of Quantitative Methods to Identify Analogous Cities: A Search for Relevant Experiences in the Development of Smart Cities for Implementation in Kazakhstan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid urban growth and the spread of the concept of smart cities force an increasing need to understand how cities become “smart” and apply their experience where it will best take root. Understanding which experience will be most suitable is not a trivial task and requires labor-intensive analysis. This study aims to identify smart cities that are most similar to Almaty and Astana in terms of key indicators by applying quantitative methods. Using a sample of smart cities, this paper successively employs three methods—principal component analysis, hierarchical cluster analysis, and t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding. The results showed that Denver and Ottawa are the closest to Almaty and Astana, followed by Ankara and Phoenix. The proposed methodology allowed us to assess the similarity of urban development conditions, with an assumption that similar development conditions determine approaches to the development of smart cities, and thus the relevance of experiences from other smart cities worldwide could be applied to Almaty and Astana. This approach is intended to contribute to the effectiveness of transferring advanced solutions of smart city development to the context of Kazakhstan. The obtained conclusions can be used to form recommendations for the development strategy of Almaty and Astana, as well as other cities facing similar challenges.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".