MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416571485 · doi:10.3390/land14122303

Unraveling Socio-Ecological Inequities in Outer London: Cluster-Based Resilience Planning

2025· article· en· W4416571485 on OpenAlexaff
Qian Mao, Mingze Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueLand · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Environmental justiceSocial ecologyCorporate governanceSustainable developmentPsychological resilienceEconomic JusticeSustainability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sustainable development of cities urgently requires an understanding of the interaction between social equity and ecological quality, especially in the peri-urban areas that traditional environmental justice research has paid less attention to. Taking Outer London as an example in this study, the Comprehensive Social Equity Index (CSEI) and the Remote Sensing Ecological Index (RSEI) were constructed to explore the social–ecological coupling relationship and spatial heterogeneity. Four types of socio-ecological coupling were identified through the four-quadrant model, ordinary least squares (OLS), and multi-scale geographically weighted regression (MGWR). The results reveal the characteristics of nonlinear coupling: in addition to the dual disadvantages and advantages of society and ecology, there are also regional patterns where social conditions are advantageous, but ecology is degraded, and where society is weak, but ecology is rich. This indicates that there is a complex spatial dislocation relationship between society and ecology in the peri-urban. The research proposes a scale-sensitive governance strategy based on location, emphasizing the coordinated countermeasures of social reinvestment and ecological restoration, providing a new perspective for environmental justice and sustainable planning in the peri-urban areas of the UK.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.317 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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 topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207