Achieving More Effective Public Engagement with the English Planning System
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
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes The pressure that the government puts on English local planning authorities to improve their development control performance, measured by the percentages of applications of particular types determined within specified periods, is considerable. For 2003/04, the government had 'set standards' (that is to say, required them to achieve a minimum performance level set by the government, with the threat of intervention if they did not meet these standards) for 90 local planning authorities seen as having performed poorly during 2001/02, which is nearly one-quarter of English local planning authorities. Interviewees for this project would have been very conscious of this pressure, because three of the five authorities employing our interviewees are amongst those set standards (ODPM, Citation2003d). They would also have been very conscious of the role that development control performance played in their allocation of PDG, because it was the basis for the 2003/04 allocations and would still be "the main basis of grant allocation" in 2004/05 (ODPM, Citation2003b).
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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