Malaysian Development Planning System: Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan and Public Participation
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
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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