Analyzing the Power and Benefits of Activists in the Feasibility of Urban Land Use (Case Study: Samen Region of Mashhad)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The context of Samen region of Mashhad has become a center of conflicts in interests due to the conflict between development forces on the one hand and the weakness of responding to daily needs. According to the detailed plan of Hareem Razavi, despite the passage of more than 30 years of extensive interventions in this context, the level of realization of land use in this area has not been in a good condition and has been accompanied by many dissatisfactions. Considering that the success of the programs has always been It depends on the knowledge and analysis of the actors, therefore, the current research was carried out with the aim of identifying and analyzing the effective actors in the feasibility of land use in Samen region through the Mendelow matrix to map the power-interest relationships of the actors.And a survey has been conducted through interviews and questionnaires, in which 54 experts have collaborated in the field of implementation of detailed plans in Sahamen region. Data analysis has been done through the comparison of averages and Friedman's test in Spss26 software. The key actors in the detailed plan of Samen region are the shareholders of Samen Construction and Housing Company (municipality, Astan Quds Razavi and Urban Regeneration Company), which are known as the implementing organization of the project. The actors who are placed in the second quadrant of the matrix (Fig 9) and in the range of keeping satisfied are often the governing institutions at the national level. Activists who are placed in the third quarter and the range of keeping informed, although they have a high interest in realizing the land use of Samen region, but they do not have much power, such as: neighbors and pilgrims. The activists who are in the fourth quadrant have little power and interests and are known as the minimum effort group. Such as: research institutes, non-governmental organizations. It will be very effective to identify the power and interests of activists to apply them in policy making and to reduce the areas of conflicts and to create common good in order to realize the land use of Samen region.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".