(Re)Prioritizing Citizens in Smart Cities Governance: Examples of Smart Citizenship from Urban India
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By examining the community-focused informatics work of Transparent Chennai (TC) (India) we seek to contrast the Smart Cities agenda — with its focus on the consumption and commercialization of digital technologies and infrastructure — to citizen-driven approaches, what we term, Smart Citizenship. A Smart Citizenship approach engages citizens in complementary digitally mediated and face-to-face processes that respect local knowledge systems. We devise a framework for understanding Smart Citizenship and link this to our case study of Transparent Chennai. Our research identifies how information and communication technologies (ICTs) can serve to spotlight overlooked or undervalued urban infrastructural, planning and environmental issues — such as the need for access to safe and clean public toilets; road safety and pro-pedestrian planning. We conclude by suggesting that a locally grounded Smart Citizenship agenda can reprioritize the needs and interests of local communities and neighbourhoods in urban governance, rather than those of exclusivist private commercial interests.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it