Historical and cultural block activation potential evaluation method

Abstract

The invention discloses a historical culture block activation potential evaluation method comprising the following steps: S1, obtaining target data including natural data and humanistic data of a target historical culture block; s2, inputting the target data into the activation potential evaluation model, and calculating a comprehensive score; the activation potential evaluation model comprises evaluation indexes and weight coefficients, and the comprehensive score is calculated according to the sum of products of scores of the evaluation indexes and the weight coefficients of the evaluation indexes; s3, obtaining an evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block according to the comprehensive score; the evaluation index obtaining method comprises the steps of determining importance indexes of candidate feature words; determining a plurality of key feature words according to the importance index; and clustering the key feature words to determine evaluation indexes. According to the method, the activation potential evaluation model is established through the evaluation indexes and the weight coefficients, the defects of general type division and subjective evaluation indexes of a traditional method are overcome, and the credibility of the activation potential evaluation result of the historical and cultural block is improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of historical and cultural resource evaluation technology, specifically to a method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks. Background Technology

[0002] Currently, historical and cultural blocks are rich in resources. Assessing the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks can provide a scientific basis for their protection and utilization, enabling more precise protection, preventing cultural loss, optimizing resource allocation, ensuring the scientific use of historical and cultural block resources, and activating economic and social benefits.

[0003] Numerous factors influence the development of historical and cultural blocks. Assessing their revitalization potential requires consideration of factors such as population size, economic development, resource conditions, and socio-cultural aspects, as well as complex processes involving relevant policies and planning implementation. Currently, assessments of historical and cultural blocks such as ancient towns and villages mostly employ the traditional method of classifying and rating historical and cultural blocks based on expert experience to formulate assessment factors. This method suffers from generalized classifications, subjective and overly qualitative evaluation indicators, and poor scientific rigor and objectivity. Consequently, the classification results are difficult to effectively guide the protection and utilization of historical and cultural block resources in practice, and it is difficult to realize the value and goals of historical and cultural resources in promoting local development. Summary of the Invention

[0004] To address the shortcomings of existing technologies, this invention provides a method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks. This method can establish detailed evaluation indicators and a relatively stable weighting system, thereby improving the scientific validity and credibility of the evaluation results. It overcomes the subjective defects of traditional evaluation indicators based on experience, and can provide a scientific basis for the protection and utilization of historical and cultural block resources, thus contributing to the optimization of resource allocation.

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention adopts one or more of the following technical solutions: A method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks is provided, including the following steps: S1. Obtain target data, which includes natural and cultural data of the target historical and cultural district; S2. Input the target data into the activation potential evaluation model and calculate the comprehensive score; the activation potential evaluation model includes activation potential evaluation indicators and weight coefficients, and the comprehensive score is calculated based on the sum of the products of the scores of each evaluation indicator and the weight coefficients of each evaluation indicator. S3. Based on the comprehensive score, obtain the evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block; The process of constructing the activation potential evaluation model includes determining the activation potential evaluation index, and the specific process of determining the activation potential evaluation index is as follows: Identify candidate keywords for the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks; Determine the importance index of candidate feature words; Multiple key feature words are determined based on the importance index; Clustering of the key feature words determines the activation potential evaluation index.

[0006] Preferably, the construction process of the activation potential evaluation model is as follows: S211. Establish a database of natural and cultural data for historical and cultural blocks; the database includes factual data and theoretical articles. S212. Determine the revitalization potential evaluation indicators based on the aforementioned historical and cultural district natural and cultural data database; S213. Determine the scoring rules for each of the activation potential evaluation indicators; S214. Determine the weighting coefficients of each of the activation potential evaluation indicators.

[0007] Preferably, in step S2, the specific process of determining the importance index of candidate feature words is as follows: Extract the titles of theoretical articles to obtain the raw data; The original data is segmented into words, and a professional dictionary and a stop word list are built to reduce noise in the segmentation results to obtain candidate feature words; The importance index of candidate feature words is calculated using the TF-IDF weighted method. The calculation formula is as follows:

[0008] in, The frequency of a candidate feature word is calculated using the following formula:

[0009] In the formula, Candidate feature words In the text The number of times it appears in For text The number of all candidate feature words in the text; in, The frequency of inverted text terms is calculated using the following formula:

[0010] In the formula, |D| represents the total number of articles in the original data. This indicates the number of articles containing a particular candidate feature word.

[0011] Preferably, in step S2, the specific process of determining multiple key feature words based on the importance index is as follows: Candidate feature words are sorted in descending order of importance index; Select the top-ranked candidate feature words as key feature words at a specific ratio.

[0012] Preferably, in step S2, the specific process of determining the evaluation index for the clustering of the key feature words is as follows: Each key feature word is converted into a vocabulary vector using a word embedding model; The K-Means++ clustering algorithm is used to cluster all word vectors, and the number of clusters is set to obtain the first-level evaluation index. A cohesive hierarchical clustering algorithm is used to cluster the key feature words under each primary evaluation index to obtain the secondary evaluation index. Based on the key features under the secondary evaluation indicators and with reference to relevant academic literature, a tertiary evaluation indicator was derived.

[0013] Preferably, in step S2, the method for obtaining the weighting coefficients includes: Scoring data for various evaluation indicators were collected through questionnaires; The scoring data was processed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to obtain the relative weight values ​​of each evaluation indicator in a single-level ranking. The absolute weight values ​​of each evaluation indicator are calculated based on the relative weight values, and these absolute weight values ​​are used as weight coefficients. The formula for calculating the absolute weight values ​​is as follows:

[0014] in, This represents the absolute weight value of the third-level indicator. The relative weight values ​​of the primary indicators corresponding to the tertiary indicators. The relative weight values ​​of the secondary indicators corresponding to the tertiary indicators. This represents the relative weight value corresponding to the three-level indicators.

[0015] Preferably, in step S2, the specific process for calculating the comprehensive score is as follows: Based on natural and human databases and the scoring rules of evaluation indicators, all three-level evaluation indicators of the target historical and cultural block are scored to obtain the actual scores of each evaluation indicator. The scores for each of the three-level evaluation indicators are calculated by combining the actual scores and weighting coefficients of each evaluation indicator. The comprehensive score of the target historical and cultural block is calculated based on the scores of each of the three-level evaluation indicators.

[0016] Preferably, in step S2, the formula for calculating the comprehensive score is:

[0017] Where i is the i-th third-level indicator, Assign actual scores to the i-th level 3 indicator. is the absolute weight value corresponding to the i-th third-level indicator.

[0018] Preferably, in step S2, the scoring rules for the evaluation indicators are determined by a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative factor indicators are classified into several quantitative intervals, and each quantitative interval has a corresponding level score. The specific process of dividing the quantified factor indicators into several quantitative intervals includes: Based on real-time data in the database, the data dispersion value of the same factor index is calculated for multiple historical and cultural blocks, and the judgment is made based on the data dispersion value: When the discrete value of the data is less than the set value, equal-width binning is used to divide the quantified factor index into several quantity intervals; When the discrete values ​​of the data are greater than the set values, the Jenks natural breakage method is used to divide the quantified factor index into several quantity intervals.

[0019] Preferably, in step S3, the specific process of obtaining the evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block based on the comprehensive score is as follows: When the overall score is in the range of 4-5 points, the evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block is that it has good potential. When the overall score is in the range of 3-4 points, the evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block is that its potential is average. When the overall score is less than 3 points, the evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block is that it has low potential.

[0020] By adopting the above technical solution, the beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows: This invention evaluates the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks using a revitalization potential evaluation model established through evaluation indicators and weighting coefficients. On the one hand, it utilizes big data to formulate detailed evaluation indicators, making the evaluation more objective and scientific, effectively overcoming the shortcomings of traditional methods that rely on expert experience to formulate evaluation factors, such as general classification and subjective evaluation indicators. On the other hand, it establishes a relatively stable weighting system combined with evaluation indicators to quantify the weights of multidimensional and complex factors, further improving the credibility of the evaluation results. The resulting comprehensive score can provide more reliable and accurate data references for the protection and utilization of historical and cultural block resources, helping to better realize the role of historical and cultural resources in supporting local development. Attached Figure Description

[0021] The accompanying drawings, which form part of this invention, are used to provide a further understanding of the invention. The illustrative embodiments of the invention and their descriptions are used to explain the invention and do not constitute an improper limitation of the invention.

[0022] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a method according to an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0023] It should be noted that the following detailed description is illustrative and intended to provide further explanation of the invention. Unless otherwise specified, all technical and scientific terms used in this invention have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention pertains.

[0024] It should be noted that the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to limit the exemplary embodiments of the present invention. As used herein, the singular form is intended to include the plural form as well, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Furthermore, it should be understood that when the terms "comprising" and / or "including" are used in this specification, they indicate the presence of features, steps, operations, devices, components, and / or combinations thereof. All other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of the present invention without inventive effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0025] Example 1 In one typical implementation of this application, a method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks is provided, such as... Figure 1 As shown, it includes the following steps: S1. Obtain target data, which includes natural and cultural data of the target historical and cultural district.

[0026] The collected natural and human data mainly consist of real-world data of the target historical and cultural districts. This data can be obtained through on-site surveys, website searches, and artificial intelligence databases. The scope of the materials and data collected should cover as many of the three-level indicators of the revitalization potential evaluation model as possible to ensure the accuracy of the revitalization potential evaluation results for the historical and cultural districts.

[0027] S2. Input the target data into the activation potential evaluation model and calculate the comprehensive score; the activation potential evaluation model includes activation potential evaluation indicators and weight coefficients, and the comprehensive score is calculated based on the sum of the products of the scores of each activation potential evaluation indicator and the weight coefficients of each evaluation indicator.

[0028] Specifically, step S2 in this embodiment includes two parts: steps S211 to S214 are the process of constructing the activation potential evaluation model, and steps S21 to S22 are the process of calculating the comprehensive score based on the target data.

[0029] The first part, the method for constructing the above-mentioned activation potential evaluation model, is as follows: S211. Establish a database of natural and cultural data for historical and cultural blocks.

[0030] Specifically, relevant statistical data and literature on the revitalization of various historical and cultural blocks are collected to establish a database of natural and cultural data for these blocks. This database includes both factual data and theoretical articles. The database is then processed to obtain candidate keywords for the revitalization of historical and cultural blocks. The theoretical articles mainly consist of academic papers on the protection and revitalization of historical and cultural blocks from platforms such as CNKI and Wanfang. Factual data can be obtained through on-site surveys, website searches, and artificial intelligence databases, and the scope of the factual data should be as broad as possible.

[0031] S212. Determine the evaluation indicators for revitalization potential based on the database of natural and cultural data of historical and cultural blocks.

[0032] Specifically, it includes the following steps: S2121. Identify candidate keywords for the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks.

[0033] In this embodiment, the data includes 12,459 theoretical articles retrieved. All theoretical articles in the database are exported, the article titles are extracted, and documents with meaningless titles or messy content are removed. Finally, 10,818 document titles with analytical value are used as the original data.

[0034] The source code for word segmentation was written, and the original data was segmented using PyCharm software. During this process, a specialized dictionary was set up to include proper nouns such as "historical and cultural blocks," "cultural tourism integration," "living heritage preservation," and "cultural genes," ensuring that the segmentation process did not process these proper nouns. Additionally, a stop word list was created to remove structural words such as prepositions and pronouns without research significance from the original data, such as "and" and "of," to reduce noise and ensure that each title, after segmentation, forms an independent and meaningful lexical unit. The "original data," "specialized dictionary," and "stop word list" were imported into PyCharm software and run, ultimately yielding 2398 candidate feature words based on the original data.

[0035] S2122. Determine the importance index of candidate feature words, and determine multiple key feature words based on the importance index.

[0036] In this embodiment, the TF-IDF weighted method is used to further process the candidate feature words. The specific process is as follows: the TF-IDF value of the candidate feature word is calculated using the calculation formula (1) as the importance index of the candidate feature word: (1) in, The frequency of a candidate feature word is calculated using formula (2): (2) In the formula, Candidate feature words In the text The number of times it appears in For text The number of all candidate feature words in the text; in, The inverted text word frequency is calculated using formula (3): (3) In the formula, |D| represents the total number of articles in the original data. This indicates the number of articles containing a particular candidate feature word.

[0037] The TF-IDF values ​​(importance index) of the candidate feature words calculated according to formula (1) are sorted in descending order, as shown in Table 1. The top 10% of candidate feature words with the highest TF-IDF values ​​(importance index) are selected as key feature words for classification. In this embodiment, 240 candidate feature words are selected as key feature words. 156 common words such as "perspective" are removed, and the remaining 84 professional terms are classified according to literature research and practical experience.

[0038] Table 1

[0039] S2123. Clustering multiple key feature words to determine activation potential evaluation indicators.

[0040] Clustering is performed on the key feature words obtained in step S122 to obtain evaluation indicators for the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks, thereby constructing an evaluation model for the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks composed of multiple indicators.

[0041] In this embodiment, the specific process for determining the activation potential evaluation index is as follows: A word embedding model was used to convert each key feature word into a lexical vector. Then, the K-Means++ algorithm was used to cluster all lexical vectors, with the number of clusters set to k=4. Euclidean distance was used as the similarity measure, and the optimal result that minimized the sum of squares within each cluster was selected through multiple runs. Finally, four clusters were obtained, corresponding to four primary evaluation indicators: environmental foundation, value characteristics, social conditions, and economic situation. Specifically, as shown in Table 2, key feature words such as "landscape, ecology, environment" were clustered as the "environmental foundation" indicator; key feature words such as "cultural heritage, architecture, intangible cultural heritage" were clustered as the "value characteristics" indicator; key feature words such as "community, management, density" were clustered as the "social conditions" indicator; and key feature words such as "tourism, economy, production, income" were clustered as the "economic situation" indicator. Finally, four primary evaluation indicators were obtained: environmental foundation, value characteristics, social conditions, and economic situation.

[0042] For the word vectors within each primary evaluation index cluster, agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithm is used for sub-clustering, with Ward's variance minimization algorithm as the connectivity criterion and Euclidean distance as the metric. By analyzing the cluster dendrogram, two secondary sub-clusters are divided into each primary cluster, thus constructing eight complete secondary evaluation indicators, namely "natural environment, built environment, tangible heritage, intangible heritage, population size, social management, income, and industrial scale".

[0043] Based on the key features under the secondary evaluation indicators, and referring to the historical and cultural block development evaluation system constructed by existing research and related academic literature, 21 tertiary evaluation indicators were summarized and constructed.

[0044] Specifically, the evaluation indicators determined in this embodiment are shown in Table 2.

[0045] Table 2

[0046] S213. Determine the scoring rules for each activation potential evaluation indicator.

[0047] Specifically, a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods is used to determine the scoring rules for the evaluation indicators, and a 5-point scale is used to assign values ​​to each evaluation indicator. The quantitative factor indicators are graded into five quantitative intervals for scoring. Therefore, the grading is further subdivided from the three levels of "good-medium-poor" into five levels: "good, relatively good, average, relatively poor, and poor". The corresponding scores are assigned from high to low as "5 points, 4 points, 3 points, 2 points, and 1 point".

[0048] The quantitative factor indicators are graded into five quantitative intervals corresponding to five evaluation levels. The specific process includes: calculating the data dispersion value of the same factor indicator for multiple historical and cultural blocks based on the real-time data in the database, and making a judgment based on the data dispersion value. When the discrete value of the data is less than the set value, the equal-width binning method is used to evenly divide the quantified factor index into 5 quantity intervals, which is simple and efficient. When the data dispersion value is greater than the set value, the Jenks natural fracture method is used to divide the quantified factor index into 5 quantity intervals, making the classification more scientific.

[0049] For the qualitative evaluation indicators, the scoring rules were determined with reference to documents such as the "Regulations on the Protection of Famous Historical and Cultural Cities, Towns and Villages" promulgated by the State Council and the research of some scholars. For example, in the three-level evaluation indicator "Location Conditions", the standard for "Good" is "closely related to the development of the urban center and relatively close in space", the standard for "Good" is "generally related to the development of the urban center and relatively close in space", the standard for "Average" is "related to the development of the urban center and moderate in space", the standard for "Poor" is "weakly related to the development of the urban center and far in space", and the standard for "Very Poor" is "basically no related to the urban center and far in space".

[0050] S214. Determine the weighting coefficients for each activation potential evaluation index.

[0051] Specifically, relevant statistical data and literature were collected for each revitalization potential evaluation indicator, and a questionnaire on the weight of revitalization potential indicators for historical and cultural blocks was distributed. By sorting out the relevant statistical data and literature and combining them with the questionnaire results, the weight coefficients of each evaluation indicator for each historical and cultural block were summarized, analyzed and calculated.

[0052] In this embodiment, the specific process for determining the weight coefficients of each evaluation indicator is as follows: Scoring data for various evaluation indicators were collected through questionnaires. A questionnaire was designed based on the established 21-level three-tier evaluation indicator system. Questionnaires and interviews were conducted with 50 relevant individuals, including 10 experts and scholars, 15 managers from the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau and Planning Institute, 10 tourists, and 15 local residents. Questionnaires were distributed, and relevant personnel assigned scores to each indicator. The questionnaires were collected and statistically analyzed to obtain the scoring data.

[0053] The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to process the scoring data, obtaining the relative weight values ​​of each evaluation indicator in a single-level ranking. For the obtained scoring data, a judgment matrix was first constructed. Then, based on the AHP mathematical model and with the aid of auxiliary software, calculations were performed to obtain the relative weight values ​​of each evaluation indicator in a single-level ranking, and a consistency check was conducted. Finally, the relative weight values ​​of each indicator were determined. For example, within the first-level indicators, the relative weight obtained through AHP was 0.1964 for environmental foundation, 0.4786 for value characteristics, 0.1084 for social conditions, and 0.2166 for economic conditions.

[0054] The absolute weight values ​​of each evaluation indicator are calculated based on the relative weight values, and these absolute weight values ​​are used as weight coefficients. The formula for calculating the absolute weight value is as follows: (4) in, This represents the absolute weight value of the third-level indicator. The relative weight values ​​of the primary indicators corresponding to the tertiary indicators. The relative weight values ​​of the secondary indicators corresponding to the tertiary indicators. This represents the relative weight value corresponding to the three-level indicators.

[0055] Specifically, the weighting system corresponding to the activation potential evaluation indicators determined through the above steps is shown in Table 3.

[0056] Table 3

[0057] In this context, the sum of the relative weights of all the next-level evaluation indicators corresponding to the same evaluation indicator is 1. For example, within the first-level evaluation indicator, b1+b2+b3+b4=1; within the second-level evaluation indicator, c1+c2=1; and within the third-level evaluation indicator, d1=1, d2+d3+d4+d5+d6+d7+d8=1.

[0058] In this embodiment, the weight system obtained based on the currently collected database and corresponding processing is shown in Table 4.

[0059] Table 4

[0060] After the above steps, a revitalization potential evaluation model for historical and cultural blocks is obtained. This model includes revitalization potential evaluation indicators, scoring rules, and weight coefficients. The scoring rules can be used to obtain the score of each revitalization potential evaluation indicator. The comprehensive score of the evaluated historical and cultural block can be obtained by calculating the sum of the products of the scores of each revitalization potential evaluation indicator and its weight coefficient.

[0061] The second part involves inputting the target data obtained in step S1 into the activation potential evaluation model to obtain a comprehensive score. S21. Based on the target data of the target historical and cultural block, and in accordance with the scoring rules in step S213, score all the third-level evaluation indicators of the target historical and cultural block to obtain the actual scores of each third-level evaluation indicator.

[0062] In this embodiment, the revitalization potential of a certain historical and cultural block in Guangdong Province is evaluated. After the collected data is scored according to the scoring rules in step S213, the scores are shown in the table.

[0063] Table 5

[0064] S22. The comprehensive score of the target historical and cultural block is calculated by combining the actual scores and weight coefficients of each of the three-level evaluation indicators.

[0065] Specifically, the comprehensive score S is calculated according to formula (5) and used to judge the revitalization potential of the target historical and cultural block.

[0066] (5) Where i is the i-th third-level indicator, Assign actual scores to the i-th level 3 indicator. is the absolute weight value corresponding to the i-th third-level indicator.

[0067] In this embodiment, combining the weight coefficient system in Table 4 and the actual scores of each of the three-level evaluation indicators in Table 5, the comprehensive score of the target historical and cultural block for evaluation using the above-mentioned revitalization potential evaluation model is calculated according to formula (5), which is 4.271 points, as shown in Table 6.

[0068] Table 6

[0069] S3. Based on the comprehensive score, obtain the evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block.

[0070] Specifically, when the overall score is in the range of 4-5 points, the evaluation result of the revitalization potential of the target historical and cultural block is that the potential is good; When the overall score is in the range of 3-4 points, the evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block is that its potential is average. When the overall score is below 3 points, the target historical and cultural district is considered to have low potential.

[0071] In this embodiment, the overall score of the target historical and cultural block is 4.271. Therefore, according to the evaluation criteria, the evaluation result of the historical and cultural block is that it has good potential.

[0072] This embodiment uses a big data mining method to determine the evaluation system, which avoids the subjectivity of traditional methods that rely on experience to determine indicators, making the evaluation results more scientific and credible.

[0073] It should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, and are not intended to limit it. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that the present invention can have various modifications and variations. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc., made within the spirit and principles of the present invention should be included within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1. Obtain target data, which includes natural and cultural data of the target historical and cultural district; S2. Input the target data into the activation potential evaluation model and calculate the comprehensive score; the activation potential evaluation model includes activation potential evaluation indicators and weight coefficients, and the comprehensive score is calculated based on the sum of the products of the scores of each evaluation indicator and the weight coefficients of each evaluation indicator. S3. Based on the comprehensive score, obtain the evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block; The process of constructing the activation potential evaluation model includes determining the activation potential evaluation index, and the specific process of determining the activation potential evaluation index is as follows: Identify candidate keywords for the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks; Determine the importance index of candidate feature words; Multiple key feature words are determined based on the importance index; Clustering of the key feature words determines the activation potential evaluation index.

2. The method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The specific process of constructing the activation potential evaluation model is as follows: S211. Establish a database of natural and cultural data for historical and cultural blocks; the database includes factual data and theoretical articles. S212. Determine the revitalization potential evaluation indicators based on the aforementioned historical and cultural district natural and cultural data database; S212. Determine the scoring rules for each of the activation potential evaluation indicators; S214. Determine the weighting coefficients of each of the activation potential evaluation indicators.

3. The method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks as described in claim 2, characterized in that, In step S2, the specific process of determining the importance index of candidate feature words is as follows: Extract the titles of theoretical articles to obtain the raw data; The original data is segmented into words, and a professional dictionary and a stop word list are built to reduce noise in the segmentation results to obtain candidate feature words; The importance index of candidate feature words is calculated using the TF-IDF weighted method. The calculation formula is as follows: in, The frequency of a candidate feature word is calculated using the following formula: In the formula, Candidate feature words In theoretical articles The number of times it appears in For theoretical article text The number of all candidate feature words in the text; in, The frequency of inverted text terms is calculated using the following formula: In the formula, |D| represents the total number of headings in the original data. This indicates the number of theoretical articles containing a certain candidate feature word.

4. The method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks as described in claim 2, characterized in that, The specific process for determining multiple key feature words based on the importance index is as follows: Candidate feature words are sorted in descending order of importance index; Candidate feature words with the highest importance index are selected as key feature words at a specific ratio.

5. The method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks as described in claim 2, characterized in that, In step S2, the specific process of determining the evaluation index for the clustering of the key feature words is as follows: Each key feature word is converted into a vocabulary vector using a word embedding model; The K-Means++ clustering algorithm is used to cluster all word vectors, and the number of clusters is set to obtain the first-level evaluation index. A cohesive hierarchical clustering algorithm is used to cluster the key feature words under each primary evaluation index to obtain the secondary evaluation index. Based on the key features under the secondary evaluation indicators and with reference to relevant academic literature, a tertiary evaluation indicator was derived.

6. The method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks as described in claim 5, characterized in that, The specific process for determining the weighting coefficients of each of the activation potential evaluation indicators in step S212 is as follows: Scoring data for various evaluation indicators were collected through questionnaires; The scoring data was processed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to obtain the relative weight values ​​of each evaluation indicator in a single-level ranking. The absolute weight values ​​of each evaluation indicator are calculated based on the relative weight values, and these absolute weight values ​​are used as weight coefficients. The formula for calculating the absolute weight values ​​is as follows: in, This represents the absolute weight value of the third-level indicator. The relative weight values ​​of the primary indicators corresponding to the tertiary indicators. The relative weight values ​​of the secondary indicators corresponding to the tertiary indicators. This represents the relative weight value corresponding to the three-level indicators.

7. The method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks as described in claim 5, characterized in that, In step S2, the specific process of inputting the target data into the activation potential evaluation model and calculating the comprehensive score is as follows: S21. Based on the target data and the scoring rules, score all the third-level evaluation indicators of the target historical and cultural block to obtain the actual scores of each third-level evaluation indicator. S22. The comprehensive score of the target historical and cultural block is calculated by combining the actual scores and weight coefficients of each of the three-level evaluation indicators.

8. The method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks as described in claim 7, characterized in that, In step S2, the formula for calculating the overall score is as follows: Where i is the i-th third-level indicator, Assign actual scores to the i-th level 3 indicator. is the absolute weight value corresponding to the i-th third-level indicator.

9. The method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks as described in claim 8, characterized in that, In step S212, the scoring rules of the evaluation indicators are determined by a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative factor indicators are classified into several quantitative intervals, and each quantitative interval has a corresponding level score. The specific process of dividing the quantified factor indicators into several quantitative intervals includes: Based on real-time data in the database, the data dispersion value of the same factor index is calculated for multiple historical and cultural blocks, and the judgment is made based on the data dispersion value: When the discrete value of the data is less than the set value, equal-width binning is used to divide the quantified factor index into several quantity intervals; When the discrete values ​​of the data are greater than the set values, the Jenks natural breakage method is used to divide the quantified factor index into several quantity intervals.

10. The method for evaluating the revitalization potential of historical and cultural blocks as described in claim 1, characterized in that, In step S3, the specific process of obtaining the evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block based on the comprehensive score is as follows: When the overall score is in the range of 4-5 points, the evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block is that it has good potential. When the overall score is in the range of 3-4 points, the evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block is that its potential is average. When the overall score is less than 3 points, the evaluation result of the target historical and cultural block is that it has low potential.

Images