A Place of Emergent Democratic Practices: Urban Freeway Disputes 1970-1990
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to work at the intersection of policy and political theory while it considers the interaction between transportation technology and democratic practices located in past disputes regarding the construction of urban interstate freeways in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. Interstate policy is an interesting place to look at changing democratic practices because people are engaged as citizens of a particular place rather than as consumers or merely voters. Past confrontations between citizen activists and transportation experts in urban areas offer a rich source of experiences from which we can gain understanding of the conflict between technocratic, administrative agencies and public life defined in human terms at the local level. Additionally, transportation problems require a public solution because it is not possible for members of the public to opt out of the given transportation system. In this paper I argue that incipient forms of deliberative democratic political practices broke through a previously exclusionary bureaucracy via the citizen protests of urban interstates in Minneapolis and St. Paul in the two decades from 1970 to 1990. Although citizens moved further into the design and planning process at this time, further development of structures for meaningful citizen engagement was halted due to lack of funds, lack of commitment, and lack of vision.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".