MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269084686 · doi:10.18192/clg-cgl.v5i1-2.1470

Engaging Citizens in Cultural Planning with a Web Map Survey

2015· article· en· W2269084686 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueCulture and Local Governance · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicResearch in Social Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionPublic participationProcess (computing)SociologyKnowledge managementComputer sciencePublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the use of a web map survey tool for cultural mapping in Nikkilä, in the municipality of Sipoo, Finland. Nikkilä has in place an ongoing cultural planning and development process that involves collaborative planning between the municipal urban planning department and the cultural department. Cultural planning is a culturally sensitive approach in urban development. The main goal in cultural planning is to study ‘sense of place’ and discover what makes the place distinctive. The starting point of the process is to study the experiences and visions of local inhabitants and other public stakeholders regarding the area and its resources. Cultural mapping is a central part of a process that aims to increase the welfare and attractiveness of Nikkilä by utilizing existing cultural resources. This paper describes the participative design process of the web map survey, which was used as a cultural mapping tool to engage citizens to participate in the cultural planning process. Based on the case study, we are convinced that a web map survey is suitable for use as a cultural mapping tool. However, to achieve a good result it is necessary to invest in the design as well as the marketing of the survey. User-centred methods, such as collaborative planning, can be used to engage different user groups in the design of the survey. The earlier that prospective respondents can be involved in the collaborative design of a survey, the better results can be expected, quantitative as well as qualitative.Keywords: web map survey, cultural mapping, citizen participation, public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS)Résumé: Cet article discute de l’introduction d’outils de cartographie web dans le cadre de la planification culturelle de Nikkilä, dans la municipalité de Sipoo en Finlande. La zone de Nikkilä a depuis longtemps mis en place un processus de planification culturelle en collaboration avec le Département de planification urbaine et le Département de la culture. La planification culturelle est une activité sensible dont l’objectif principal consiste à cerner ce qui participe à l’identité d’un espace de la ville, et permettant de relever ce qui lui confère son caractère distinct. Pour Nikkilä, la planification culturelle permet de mettre en lien les ressources culturelles disponibles afin de rendre la région plus attractive. Cet article met en relief l’utilisation des nouveaux outils web de planification culturelle et leur utilisation dans le cadre de projets de design culturel participatif. L’étude de cas démontre l’utilité de ces nouveaux outils de planification culturelle. De plus, cet article rappel l’importance du design et du marketing pour le succès de l’application des nouveaux outils de planification en ligne.Mots clé: carte topographique en ligne, cartographie culturelle, participation du citoyen, systèmes d'information géographique publics et participatifs

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.289 · 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