Concepts of linear city for the urban re-development of Gaza, Palestine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban planning remained until the mid-19th century limited to roads and squares construction, tree plantation and organization of buildings facades. By the turn of the 20th century, urban planning witnessed great development with the efforts of the first pioneers and the development of planning theories, one of which was the Linear City theory of Soria Y Mata. This theory was then developed further by the theory of Polycentric Linear City and the theory of Gauthier Linear Vertical City. Urban planning was first established in Palestine during the first quarter of the 2oth century by the British Mandate occupation authorities. It was limited to the regulatory framework aimed at the control of Palestinians’ use of their land. These regulations were not accompanied by a renaissance in the urban culture that was developing in Europe at the start of the 20th century. The end of the British mandate and the establishment of Israel in 1948 did not provide any chance for any development of the urban culture and planning practices in Palestine. The problem continued under the Israeli occupation of West Bank and Gaza in 1967. A serious attempt to rebuild a developed Palestinian urban planning system started in 1996 with the cooperation program between the Palestinian National Authority and the Norwegian government. The first regional plan was prepared for the Gaza Strip in addition to a structure plan for the city of Gaza. The regional plan favored a spatial strategy with two main cities, Gaza in the north and Khanunis in the south. This strategy overrides the geographic, demographic, and urban conditions prevailing in Gaza, which is only a small narrow linear of land overcrowded with around 1.5 million populations. This research investigates Gauthier Linear Vertical City theory and employs it to provide innovative solutions for the urban development in Gaza. This research was prepared before the barbaric Israeli wat on Gaza which started in October 2023 and continue during the preparation of the article for this conference. Hope never has been lost that Gaza will rise again like phoenix and this research will find a way to enlighten urban thinking for the development of Gaza.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".