Confrontation, consultation, cooperation? Community groups and urban change in Canadian port‐city waterfronts
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
The process of urban waterfront change in port cities is influenced by a wide range of factors, and the roles of urban planners, port authorities and property developers are often moderated by those of community groups. Using established methodology based on structured tape‐recorded interviews with group representatives, this paper explores the attitudes and character of a range of such groups in a series of contrasted Canadian port cities. The outcomes show substantial but varying influence and, although many activities and perceptions are place‐specific, a widespread awareness of global as well as local issues is revealed. Dans les villes portuaires, le processus de changement du front urbano‐portuaire est influencé par un large éventail de facteurs, et les rôles des planificateurs urbains, des autorités portuaires et des promoteurs immobiliers sont souvent tempérés par les groupes de citoyens. A partir d'une méthodologie éprouvée (entrevues dirigées et enregistrées avec des representants des ces differents groupes) l'article explore les attitudes et particularités d'un échantillon des différents groupes dans une série de villes portuaires canadiennes aux caractéristiques contrastées. L'enquête met en évidence des influences substantielles mais variables et, quoique beaucoup d'activités et de perceptions soient spécifiques aux différents lieux, une prise de conscience généralisée des enjeux aussi bien globaux que locaux a été révélée.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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