Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban planners play an important role, communicate plans with developers on behalf of the city and its inhabitants. They also function as shepherds for a developer's development application, communicating with civic technicians, who ensure adherence to bylaws, civic committees, and the public. As a communication proxy between all these different stakeholders, urban planners often find themselves at the center of miscommunications, often due to assumptions and discussions made over paper-based sketches. This study employs interviews and observations with twelve urban planners from a major Canadian city to investigate the communication challenges around technical activities of the design review process, also to explore tools and technologies that are used within the design review process. Thus, the goal of this study is to arrive at a set of design recommendations to create a mobile, interactive communication medium that can potentially support the participatory communication and technical activities of the design review process.
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 | 0.189 | 0.329 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.027 |
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".