Visions of the Livable City: Reflections on the Jacobs–Mumford Debate
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
Since moving to Canada in 1969, Jane Jacobs, who recently passed away, has inspired and continues to inspire debate within Canada, as well as elsewhere, on the potential for and promise of the urban experience. Jacobs was not only a critic of unrestricted growth and the destruction of neighborhoods but, frequently, of the efforts of urban planners. The exchanges between Jacobs, author of The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), and the American planner and cultural critic Lewis Mumford, author of The Culture of Cities (1938) and The City in History (1961), raised some important issues that are still debated. In spite of their differences, however, the two also shared many values, even if each had reservations about the likely efficacy of the other's policy prescriptions. This paper compares and contrasts the views of the two authors who shared a concern about the hazards of unfettered growth but who often differed not only on what the response to growth should be, but also on the proper approach to understanding how cities either work or do not work.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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