Participatory Planning, Justice, and Climate Change in Durban, South Africa
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
A changing climate seriously challenges our sociopolitical and economic systems. Elaborating on one possible element of a successful human response, this paper looks at how participatory governance is treated in the literatures on social justice and climate change. This paper applies the works of Habermas and Foucault, as well as recent work from the fields of urban and environmental planning, to clarify how the balance between structure, power, and agency influences attempts to address social inequality and climate change. Applying this general framework to a case study of Durban, South Africa, the paper then discusses the effectiveness of participatory structures in practice. This case study provides a productive space to study the intersection of social and environmental concerns. It also allows us to explore how interactions between formal and informal participation expose the limits both of confrontational (Foucauldian) and of consensus-based (Habermassian) approaches to governance. These limitations are instructive as we attempt to create cities that are both socially just and environmentally sustainable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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