MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2308350753 · doi:10.14288/1.0097968

Utopian design and planning

2010· article· en· W2308350753 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Antoni Michael James

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture, Design, and Social History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this thesis is to provide a current overview of the subject of Utopian design in order to reaffirm its value as a component of planning methodology. From the relevant literature there is a wealth of comment on the need for such a paradigm expansion as well as a vast body of visions for alternate futures. Primarily a tool of physical planners, the Utopian process can be adapted to the broader context if appropriate methodology can be developed and integrated into the mainstream. The first chapter sets the context. It provides an overview of changing planning paradigms from the turn of the century and discusses areas of inadequacy in the current approach. The second chapter focuses on the subject of Utopian design, its approach, and fundamental elements as a preliminary foundation for methodological development. The third and fourth chapters examine a series of early and recent Utopian designs respectively. Early Utopian designs are described and analysed as to their impact on succeeding planning thought, thereby establishing credibility; recent Utopian designs are studied to speculate on the kinds of issues and options which planners may be involved in for the future. The fifth chapter is a speculative exercise which synthesizes ideas from the vast menu of the Utopian oeuvre into two diametrically opposed scenarios for Canada in the 21st Century. The intention is to illustrate the potential of Utopian designs in modeling alternatives for discussion and decision-making. In the final chapter, the thesis concludes by turning the discussion to other, non-physical aspects of planning where a Utopian element can be effective. It is hoped that further research into this subject can result in a broadening and balancing of the current planning paradigm and thus advance the role and responsibility of planners in better anticipating the future and in more creatively providing improved options for consideration.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicArchitecture, Design, and Social HistoryFrench-language works237,207