Malaysian Development Planning System: Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan and Public Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Malaysia, public participation is not just an alternative for better planning, but is a requirement as stated in the planning law. Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act 172) and the amendments require public participation in the process of preparing development plans (structure plans and local plans) in Peninsular Malaysia (except Kuala Lumpur). In Kuala Lumpur, it is stated in the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 (Act 267). Development plan as the name suggests guide the location of development with criteria based policies. Public has the right to know and participate in making decisions, particularly in those which potentially affect the communities in which they live and work. Research had been carried out to identify the effectiveness of the public participation programme for Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan 2020. The research was carried out by collecting feedback from the participants of public exhibitions and workshops. Through the research, it was found that series of workshops are the effective method of public participation for development plan as compared to one public exhibition after draft proposal or plan has been completed. This is because an effective and successful public participation programme should allow members of the community to have an active voice in the process and to have free access to important information.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".