Conference Report: <i>The Second GPN Congress, Zhenjiang, 2008</i>
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.) The Global Planners Network (GPN)1 held its second congress from 31 October to 2 November 2008 in China. GPN is the global network of planners and professional planning institutions which formally established itself at its first congress in Vancouver in 2006. Members of the GPN subscribe to the principles of the Vancouver Declaration,2 which affirms their commitment to working collaboratively to tackle the challenges of rapid urbanisation, the urbanisation of poverty and the hazards posed by climate change and natural disasters. The GPN asserts the essential role of spatial planning in addressing these challenges: 'we cannot have sustainable communities without sustainable urbanisation, and without planning there is no sustainable urbanisation.' GPN's second congress was held in Zhenjiang in China's Jiangsu Province. Once an important feudal capital, Zhenjiang grew to importance as a garrison town guarding the entrance to the Yangtze River (Fig. 1). It is a charming city laid out in avenues, each one leading to a prominent architectural or physical landmark. Like so many places in China, it fell into decline during the nineteenth and twentieth century upheavals, but in recent years it has seen a remarkable rebirth. The civic authorities have sought out the experience of planners from abroad for their ideas on managing this process. One such adviser was John Parker, chair of the Royal Town Planning Institute's International Development Network, who attended the congress and became our city guide. Held immediately before World Urban Forum 4 (WUF4, with its theme 'Harmonious urbanization: the challenge of balanced territorial development'),3 the congress was a chance for the global planning community to draft and agree messages that it could deliver to the World Forum and its delegates. The congress venue of Zhenjiang was an ideal jumping-off point for Nanjing, just 100km away, where WUF4 was held. Participants and programme With the American Planning Association playing a lead organisational role, the congress was a truly international event, with around 200 participants from all parts of the world. There was a strong international dimension to all the discussions, which were structured around the GPN's three key themes. Each theme was hosted by different planning organisations. The 'Poverty and Inequality' theme was hosted by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI),4 the Commonwealth Association of Planners (CAP)5 and UN-HABITAT.6 The 'Urbanization' theme was hosted by the American Planning Asociation (APA)7 and China. The 'Climate Change and Hazards' theme was hosted by the Canadian Institute of Planners/Institut Canadien des Urbanistes (CIP/ICU)8 and the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA).9 While experiences were unique to each context, it became apparent to delegates that there are global issues affecting planning. The excellent papers delivered by the very strong Chinese participants were particularly impressive, presenting clear perspectives on the spatial planning issues that Chinese planners have been wrestling with in this enormous country, which has been enjoying 10 per cent annual growth for the past decade. Their papers covered familiar economic, social, environmental and conservation themes with, at least for these reporters, a fascinating Chinese angle. The key themes Anna K. Tibaijuka, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of UN-HABITAT, set the overall tone for the three days in her opening remarks. Mrs Tibaijuka told delegates that there was a renewed awareness of the need for planning within the agency. Once seen as a central plank of its activities, planning had more recently been thought of as a tool of the past. Now, the role that good urban governance plays in the efficient and effective delivery of public services and reducing poverty has been seen to be the way ahead. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,279 | 0,107 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».