MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114465724 · doi:10.1177/0269094213505162

Growing nowhere: Privileging economic growth in planning policy

2013· article· en· W2114465724 on OpenAlex
Sarah Longlands

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueLocal Economy The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of GlasgowMcMaster University
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Privilege (computing)Local planningLocal governmentGovernment (linguistics)Growth managementPolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsPublic administrationEnvironmental planningLand useEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the relationship between planning and economic growth, examining the impact of planning strategies which increasingly privilege economic growth as the key objective. Drawing from research in two contrasting English urban local authorities – one experiencing growth, the other decline, the article examines how economic growth is understood and defined locally. It also examines how a low growth context, coupled with a changing policy context is impacting on local decision making. The research finds that economic growth has become a dominant objective of local planning policy but questions the efficacy of this approach arguing that it does not necessarily address place-based challenges and may actually undermine the ability of local government to use the planning system to improve quality of life for residents.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.256 · 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