MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6944647406 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.200620

Trends in Spatial Justice in Urban Space Planning: A Study of Selected Urban Spaces in 1st Kinda Neighborhood in the City of Kufa–Iraq

2025· article· en· W6944647406 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban spaceSpace (punctuation)Urban spatial structureUrban planningEconomic JusticeEnvironmental justiceUrban climateUrban geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of spatial justice is an effective concept that researchers have begun to study to improve urban environments.All authorities seek to achieve this concept at the national, regional, local, and even urban levels.Based on this, the study aimed to derive effective indicators that can be applied to urban space planning, whether at the level of green spaces, open recreational areas.etc.Based on a study of the literature, a set of factors was identified: spatial security, community rights, diversity of activities, spatial empowerment, spatial resilience, accessibility, and social interaction.Several indicators were then derived, like the presence of cameras, participation, and fairness, in addition to the diversity of commercial, recreational, and cultural activities, the presence of training courses and community development programs, adaptability and spatial proximity, as well as the presence of benches, umbrellas, restaurants, and kiosksetc.The study then focused on selected urban space in 1 st Kinda neighborhood in the city of Kufa, Iraq, where indicators were measured using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), field surveys, and questionnaire results using a fivepoint Likert scale, in addition to other statistical methods to quantitatively measure some indicators.The results indicated that the spatial security, spatial resilience, accessibility, and social interaction indicators achieved high levels of satisfaction, while the community rights indicators showed that the participation rate was low and unsatisfactory.However, the justice indicator achieved a high level of satisfaction, while the diversity results were very weak compared to the other indicators.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207