Pubblic Spaces in a Develop Country: Not to Be Formally Planned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper starts from the idea that the concept of informality could be related to urban planning, not only as a survival strategy for the urban poor in terms of housing and working, but also as a cultural approach for planners and inhabitants in terms of design and living of public spaces. These observations are based on a research Program of Relevant National Interest (PRIN 2009) titled Public spaces, mobile populations and processes of urban reorganisation, by the research unit of the city of Turin, Italy. We proceed doing some in-depth interview about the relations between urban populations and doing some direct observation of some significant public spaces in the City Centre, in the San Salvario district and in the quarter of Barriera di Milano. From the research generally emerged that public spaces are acknowledged as weak space for socialization, to which certain thoughts on the role of commerce and new media are linked. In summary we identify some different approaches: public space as a relational space, "cappuccino" space, weak sociality space, new relational spaces and a new type of public space: the "District Houses". What they mainly have in common is that neither of them is really planned on a technical point of view. So, we can recognize a sort a new informal cultural approach of urban planning practices about public spaces
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".