MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414182174 · doi:10.3390/land14091880

Research on the Priority of County-Level Territorial Space Consolidation: Form–Flow Synthesis Analysis Based on Principal Component Analysis

2025· article· en· W4414182174 on OpenAlexaff
Jia Ao, Yuzhe Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueLand · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
FundersZhejiang UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisSpace (punctuation)Consolidation (business)Matching (statistics)Identification (biology)Corporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scientific identification of the priority of territorial space consolidation in counties is a key prerequisite for clarifying the direction of regional improvement and implementing differentiated spatial governance strategies. This paper breaks through the traditional evaluation paradigm of separating “form” and “flow”, and for the first time innovatively integrates the theory of “form–flow synthesis” with the method of principal component analysis. This paper takes Deqing County as the empirical study area. Through principal component analysis, 19 initial indicators were dimensionally reduced into a “flow–form” two-dimensional space with clear geographical significance. Then, the natural discontinuity method was used to classify it into nine types of “flow–form” combination types, and the 13 towns of Deqing County were projected onto the “flow–form” two-dimensional coordinates, thereby objectively revealing the matching/mismatch relationship between the “flow” and “form” in space. The results show that the current territorial space of Deqing County presents characteristics of “overall balance but local imbalance”. This paper also discusses the consolidation priority strategy based on the “flow–form” matching results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLandSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207