Exploring the use of PPGIS in self-organizing urban development: Case softGIS in Pacific Beach
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 paper seeks to identify prerequisites for introducing an established PPGIS tool in the field of self-organizing urban development. On the basis of a SoftGIS study in Pacific Beach, San Diego, we argue that despite PPGIS applications’ close connection to formal urban planning processes, PPGIS tools can support local interaction and facilitate self-organizing urban development. We could identify three facilitating roles for softGIS. It functioned, firstly, as a tool with respect to the interplay of various community organizations; secondly, as a catalyst of the process foregrounding the citizen perspective in Pacific Beach, and thirdly, as a provider of legitimacy for the responsible community organization aiming at concrete interventions in the physical environment. This was possible as the community organization and the research team had a shared interest and related expertise, and agreed about the resulting spatial analysis. In the light of this study we welcome further experiments using advanced PPGIS tools with community organizations, and call for a closer scholarly dialogue between PPGIS and Community Informatics.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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