MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128539442 · doi:10.64903/1480-6800.22.1.1

Assessing the Land Use Distribution of the Mass Rapid Transit Pedestrian Catchment Area (PCA) and its Geographical Context in the Kuala Lumpur Conurbation, Malaysia

2019· article· W7128539442 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M.N.M. Thaqif, Jamilah Mohamad

Bibliographic record

VenueArab world geographer · 2019
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand useDistribution (mathematics)Context (archaeology)Land-use planningKuala lumpurConurbationCatchment areaUrban planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Walking is the most common means of accessing transit globally. An encouraging factor for walking is related to the land use distribution of the station's pedestrian catchment area (PCA). There were two objectives conducted in the study: i) to assess the land use distribution of the PCA using Geographic Information System (GIS), and ii) to understand the station's geographical context based on the distribution of land use in the Kuala Lumpur conurbation. A 400m-station buffer PCA was designated in accordance to the policy guideline in Greater Klang Valley (GKL) Land Public Transport Master Plan. The distribution and concentration of specific land use category were geographically varied. There was a different land use distribution pattern observed in Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya. In Kuala Lumpur, the PCA in inner city areas mainly comprised commercial use while residential use was found more in the outer city areas. In Petaling Jaya, land use distribution was mainly commercial. The concentration of commercial land use reduces as one moves to outer suburbs and subsequently is replaced by residential land use. In conclusion, land use distributions can be distinguished based on their geographical location as Kuala Lumpur conurbation seems to uphold a concentric land use planning structure, while Petaling Jaya adapts to the multiple nuclei land use planning model.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArab world geographerSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207