MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529884545 · doi:10.1111/gec3.12280

Trials and Tribulations: Problematizing the City through/as Urban Experimentation

2016· article· en· W2529884545 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography Compass · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProblematizationSummonsCorporate governanceField (mathematics)Urban sustainabilityUrban studiesSustainabilityUrban planningSociologyEmbeddednessPhenomenonUrbanismPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsSocial scienceEpistemologyGeographyLawEngineeringArchitectureCivil engineeringEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This review article addresses the phenomenon of urban experimentation. Urban experimentation has achieved notable significance in recent years. Viewing the city as a laboratory for field‐testing new practices, or as a setting for experimental sites, has earned significant cache when it comes to contemporary urban issues such as governance reform, urban sustainability and economic development. In this regard, urban experiments are an important vehicle for not only understanding the city but also transforming it. This article reviews how experimentation has been defined teasing out some basic concepts before examining how experimentation has been broadly applied across urban studies. The paper then draws attention to three realms of urban development – social, economic, and sustainability – and asks how experimentation in these realms acts as a mode of problematization that summons particular forms of governance, the implications of which are summarized.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.285 · 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