MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073640188 · doi:10.1080/02697459.2012.661670

Scale and Public Participation: Issues in Metropolitan Regional Planning

2012· article· en· W2073640188 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Practice and Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaScale (ratio)Regional scienceRegional planningPopulationPolitical scienceDemocracyPublic participationInequalityGeographyEconomic growthUrban planningPublic administrationSociologyPoliticsEconomicsCivil engineeringEngineeringCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Public participation is as important at the metropolitan regional scale as it is at the neighborhood scale, yet most of the approaches to participation are grounded in experience or theory appropriate to the smaller scale. At the metropolitan regional scale, three issues—the magnitude of the spatial extent and population; inequalities of power; and the resources needed—demand that approaches to metropolitan regional participation are given special consideration. This paper explores these three issues through two case studies: one in South East Queensland and the other in Metro Vancouver. The examples help identify the difficulties of metropolitan regional public participation and draw attention to issues about effectiveness and capacity that dog debates about participation and democracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.271
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it