Placing well‐being and participation within processes of urban regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The concepts of well‐being and participation are prevalent in current regeneration policy, being seen as crucial to alleviating disadvantage and marginalisation in deprived communities. However little is understood about how such ambiguous concepts are articulated within urban regeneration practice. This paper seeks to present a reflective case study of research in a New Deal for Communities (NDC) area designed to understand different conceptualisations of well‐being and participation in community places and regeneration practices. Design/methodology/approach The perspectives of regeneration professionals, local residents and academics were revealed through the development of a multi‐method and participatory research approach using interviews, observations, video diaries and workshops. An action oriented event aimed at developing overlapping communities of practice was held to engage in active dialogue and develop shared understandings between the resident, professional and academic communities. Findings Conceptualisations of well‐being and participation articulated through regeneration policy and practice between the different stakeholder groups are contradictory. The absence of a shared vision for regeneration and differing expectations of participation can have detrimental effects on both the well‐being of local residents and the sustainability of the long‐term participation of local residents in the regeneration process. This challenges the recent government approach to creating a Big Society which is underpinned by devolved decision making and the desire for local leadership through realising the potential of communities. Originality/value The research has helped to create new relationships between residents and professionals organised around joint working and changed practice.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".