MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W626266070

The Cultural Turn in Municipal Planning

2009· dissertation· en· W626266070 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jason F. Kovacs

Notice bibliographique

RevueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2009
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCultural Industries and Urban Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCultural turnTurn (biochemistry)BusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningSociologyGeographyChemistrySocial science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Urban theorists and policy makers have begun to re-evaluate the importance of culture in urban development models. Culture is now widely viewed as a critical factor in the economic and social health of cities. Notions of creativity and the growing recognition of the role that culture-rich environments can play in attracting the “creative class,” are being partly expressed in the widespread adoption of urban cultural planning strategies. Cultural planning is commonly defined as the identification (mapping) and leveraging of cultural assets to support local community and economic development. It is also often explained as a “cultural approach” to municipal planning, an approach that entails effective cross-departmental and cross-sectoral collaboration in the implementation of strategic goals outlined within the cultural plan. A literature has been written on the potential of cultural planning by leading experts in the cultural policy field, especially from Australia and Britain. However, there has been a noticeable lack of critical research on this cultural development approach by scholars in Canada, where cultural planning is a relatively new and emerging municipal activity. This dissertation examines the policy and planning scope of the increasingly popular yet under-explored “municipal cultural planning” movement in Ontario, Canada. 
\nResearch began with a thorough review of the cultural planning literature. Cultural planning deficiencies and research gaps identified in the international literature were subsequently addressed through an analysis of all ten existing cultural plans in Ontario’s mid-size cities. The analysis of plans was complemented by thirteen in-depth interviews with municipal staff responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of cultural plans. Aside from addressing the interpretations of and rationales for municipal cultural planning, the information derived from document analysis and interviews was used to address four important issues that have been either ignored or only addressed in a cursory way in the literature: the nature and actual extent of community consultation and cultural mapping in the cultural plan development stage; the accuracy of the growing arts policy labelling of cultural planning abroad as it applies to municipal cultural planning; the relationship between cultural planning and its conceptual roots in urban planning; and the outcomes of the cultural planning strategy. 
\nIt was found that the development of cultural plans involved substantial community input, albeit not through the participatory “cultural mapping” process that is often claimed to be the preliminary step of cultural planning. In addition, it was observed that the increasingly common charge, particularly from Australia, that cultural plans are overly focussed on traditional arts sector concerns was not found to be the case with most cultural planning initiatives in Ontario. Further, while a strong urban development and planning-oriented basis has been used to differentiate cultural planning from traditional arts policy, the scope of cultural planning concerns in the sphere of urban planning practice was observed to be, with some noticeable exceptions, fairly superficial. However, this research also found that the strategic objectives outlined within cultural plans, which address a broad range of policy and planning activities related to cultural and community development, were generally being implemented and were effecting change.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,893
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,689

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,268
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Même sujetCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207