Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article considers the formation of forest-park greenbelts, based on the analysis of London, Toronto, Stockholm, Seoul, Beijing, Moscow, Saint-Petersburg and Ufa. Diagrams depict generalized greenbelt schemes in the Europe, Asia and Russia. The paper identifies planning and connections with the development and urban landscaping, similarities and differences in greenbelt planning, and placement of public centers. Purpose : The identification of modern trends in the creation of forest-park greenbelts, determination of the functional content of greenbelts. Methodology : The analysis of materials from the open access, electronic resources. The main part of the study is based on the urban analysis and generalization of literature used to create greenbelts in the Europe, Asia and Russia. The comparison is used for city maps correlating with each other and similar and different plannings are identified. Research findings : Results can be used to revise methods of placing greenbelts for structural transformation of both existing city and agglomeration plans, and in the design of new objects within the greenbelts of agglomerations, including recreational areas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".