Blending voluntary and governmental organizations for community development planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term 'community development' used in this thesis applies to an urban neighborhood. Incorporating the ideology of community development into community planning would make community planning developmental., Community developmental planning implies the realization of human potential; the concentration on the strengths of different community organizations as well as the mobilization of organized human resources for a balanced social and physical development, The NIP/LAP (Neighborhood Improvement Program / Local Area Planning) program of the City of Vancouver is chosen as an example to illustrate this concept. The purpose of NIP/LAP, as viewed from a developmental perspective, would be to help local residents identify their needs, mobilize them for active participation and develop local leadership for future local initiative in neighborhood planning. When NIP funding is exhausted, community developmental planners can leave behind a team of organized and mobilized local leaders capable of making future initiations for community betterment. The focus of the thesis is on the organizationa1 process of achieving community developmental planning. Voluntary and governmental organizations can complement each other to bring about this kind of developmental planning in local areas. This thesis looks into why and how they ought to be blended. The Riley Park NIP Committee and the Kitsilano Neighborhood House were chosen to represent respectively governmental and voluntary agencies for community developmental planning. Two research studies are conducted to identify the unique strengths and weaknesses of each type of organization. The first research investigates the role of local mobilization through the generation of social network. The second research attempts to understand the tactics of citizen participation adopted in achieving locally-initiated goals and plans. Two blending models, static and dynamic, are recommended at the end of the thesis for guiding developmental planning in urban neighborhoods.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".