La rehabilitación urbana sostenible en centros históricos: los casos de León (España) y Puebla (México)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, changes that have taken place in the historical centre of León (Spain) and Puebla (Mexico) are analysed and compared to show that the same problems occur in the old quarter of both cities. Factors determinig these problems, such as loss of vitality and physical and social deterioration, are highlighted in the two case studies. The implementation of a Sustainable Urban Integration and Rehabilitation Strategy, based on functional, formal, social and environmental characteristics, is proposed. The results are expressed as the preservation of historical heritage, and changes in land use and its environmental conditions. En este trabajo se analizan los cambios que han sufrido los centros históricos de las ciudades de León (España) y Puebla (México) para realizar una comparación y poner de manifiesto que existen los mismos problemas en ambas ciudades. Los factores que determinan la problemática de los centros históricos, tales como la pérdida de vitalidad funcional y el deterioro físico y social, se evidencian en estos dos casos de estudio. Se plantea utilizar una Estrategia de Integración y Rehabilitación Urbana Sostenible, basada en características funcionales, formales, sociales y ambientales. Los resultados se expresan mediante la conservación del patrimonio histórico, los cambios en los usos del suelo y sus condiciones ambientales. \n \n[fr] La présente étude analyse les changements subis dans les centres historiques des villes de León (Espagne) et de Puebla (Mexique) afin de réaliser une comparaison et de mettre en évidence les problèmes très similaires partagés par les deux villes. Les facteurs déterminant la problématique des centres historiques, tels que la perte de la vitalité fonctionnelle ou la détérioration physique et sociale, sont mis en évidence dans les deux cas de notre étude. On instaure l’utilisation d’une Stratégie d’Intégration et Réhabilitation Urbaine Durable, fondée sur des caractéristiques fonctionnelles, formelles, sociales et environnementales. Les résultats s‘expriment moyennant la préservation du patrimoine historique, les changements d’utilisation du sol et de ses conditions environnementales.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".