Rolling Back the State and Physical Development Planning: The Case of Barbados
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this paper is the recent preparation of the Third National Physical Development Plan for Barbados. Interestingly, this blueprint for the future development of the country was prepared by Canadian consultants, under the auspices of Inter‐American Development Bank funding, and thereby ostensibly represents the rolling back of the State in the context of physical development planning. The paper briefly examines the origins of town and country planning in Barbados and the wider Caribbean before critiquing the Third Plan produced in 1998. Emphasis is placed on salient issues such as operationalising sustainable development, the involvement of local stakeholders, the role of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) in the planning process, and the production of Community Plans. Throughout, it is shown that whilst the State appears to have been “rolled back”, government has retained its strong‐hold over the course of physical development planning, principally by “tactics” which have served to minimise the degree to which members of the public and non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) have been able to participate.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".