MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087299943 · doi:10.1080/14649350600673070

New Visions for Old Cities: The Role of Visioning in Planning

2006· article· en· W2087299943 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Theory & Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionPsychological interventionPolitical scienceSociologyPublic administrationPsychologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many plans and strategies these days are underpinned by ‘visions’. This article examines the cultural and policy shift in planning in the UK toward more integrated and participative practice, and the potential role of visioning in this new climate. Reviewing examples of vision planning in the US, where the process has a longer lineage, it argues that these interventions suffer from a lack of evaluation of the effects of ‘visioning’. Yet this visioning approach has been adopted in certain cities and towns in Northern Ireland in recent years. This article assesses the impact of this approach in a detailed case study and finds the impact to have been modest.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.322 · 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