Offices and planning in Brussels, a half-century of missed opportunities?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between offices and planning in Brussels could be summed up as a series of missed opportunities. Decisions were taken blow by blow, without truly taking account of what had been planned. This real estate game, which has been going on for half a century, has had sometimes obscure causes, often unspoken motives, but reasons that have always been logical for at least one of the four players involved in the overall misunderstanding, i.e., promoters, national government (and then federal and regional governments), local officials, and the residents themselves. Planning long remained officious, with attempts made to intervene in strips. Even though the authorities made a relevant planning proposal starting in 1958, the future European Quarter was created in silence and without directives. With the country’s subdivision into regions planning became official, but the building of offices nevertheless came in for little supervision. In 1999, more than twenty years after the adoption of Brussels’s first area plan, 47% of the some 10 million square metres of offices in Brussels (in edifices with at least 1 000 m² of office space, and thus very often monofunctional buildings) was outside the administrative zones that the area plan had set. Another form of planning went into effect in 1995, but the relationships amongst the players of the real estate game remain ambiguous. The four-party misunderstanding continues.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it