The validity of citizen attitudes as conveyed to politicians and planners through participation and representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information conveyed to city planners and politicians for use in decision making may not reflect the full range of opinions found in an urban population. People who convey the feelings of the Vancouver population - the participators - hold significantly different ideas about the relative importance of various urban issues than non- participators. People from different local areas of Vancouver also hold differing ideas about the importance of some urban issues. A reliable ten-variable scale of participation developed as part of the study was used to measure the level of participation for each of 779 Vancouver respondents and to determine the means of participation for each of twenty-two Vancouver Local Areas and Point Grey-U.B.C. in which the respondents lived. The comparative usefulness of participation and local neighbourhood areas as predictors of the perceived importance of thirty-five urban issues was tested. Both predictors are statistically significant, but with low prediction coefficients. The differences among local areas in level of participation and in "within area" range of participation have implications for civic administration and planning in Vancouver. A ward system of city government may facilitate an election of members to council which is more spatially representative yet equally efficient than the present at-large system. The existing local area planning system appears to be generally well suited for responding to differences among the local areas in both level and range of participation.
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 | 0.026 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".