Living Conditions in the Historical Center of Palermo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims the analysis of the living conditions of a sample of household, residing at a quarter of Palermo’s historic city centre so that it is an effective instrument for politicians to improve the quality of life of the residents. The definition of “poverty” is strongly related to what stated in studies about quality of life; actually, it does not depend only on expenditure capability: in fact, the employment status of the householder and the family asset are relevant as well. Then, it is simpler thinking about the standard, or living conditions, of a community, i.e. the set of goods and facilities available to people and that people can get. These observations have been the base of a multi-disciplinary research that, engaging sociologists, jurists, architects, economists and statisticians, had the aim to investigate families living standard in Palermo. In the first step of the analysis, the interest was focused on a small area because it is a privileged one thanks to its historical, environmental and cultural conditions: if we want to stop the slow and increasing deterioration it is necessary a relevant political intervention. Then, as a second step, it is basic the study of residents needs and related living condition problems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".