The master plans: what comes next?
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
The master plan was designed in the framework of the 2002 Regional Development Plan (RDP) as the preferred tool for the development of the fourteen “areas of regional interest”. The plan thus made a triple promise: better coordination of public action, effective public/private partnerships (PPPs) and true democratic participation. The tool was implemented for the first time during the last regional legislature, and is evaluated here based on an empirical study of several cases including the emblematic case of the state administrative district, as well as an afternoon meeting to discuss the results. The authors feel that the administrative complexity, the opposing interests of the public and private sectors, and the difficulty to establish true participation on behalf of inhabitants jeopardise the efficiency of a tool which – when all is said and done – is not binding. But they do not confine themselves to this acknowledgment of (partial) failure. Instead of recommending the elimination of this mechanism, they outline proposals to improve it. Although the ‘master plan’ tool is headed in the right direction, it calls for other advancements towards urban management which is more democratic, more effective, respectful of collective interests and beneficial for the future of the city.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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