The Quality of Public Spaces: An Issue of the Urban and Metropolitan Strategies in Algiers, Algeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quality of public spaces serves as a vector for a city’s development and competitiveness, increasing attractiveness and urban tourism. In Algiers, the authorities have recognized the importance of public spaces in the city’s development strategy as it strives to become an international metropolis. Their vision has grown more global and strategic since the 2011 introduction of the Master Plan for Urban Development and Planning (Algiers’ PDAU). Simultaneously, urban action has adopted a strategy for urban regeneration of public spaces, including the concrete definition of a public space charter to improve their quality for Algerians’ happiness. This paper aims to contextualize the urban strategies and actions implemented in Algiers to improve the quality of public spaces. In this context, we question the content and objectives of the public spaces charter. Thus, the proposed approach is to carry out a satisfaction survey among users and residents of the public space redeveloped as part of the urban regeneration process. We believe that the quality of public spaces is an essential issue in urban strategies, which can only be achieved through a predetermined intervention methodology involving citizens.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".