Urban project spaces in the river cities: which governance? The urban production between sectors and territories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban development projects involve some complex relationships between institutional public agents, who govern local territories, and economic agents, who make urban economies. These relationships between economic agents and urban agents are embodied in exact projects which are set in urban spaces. Thus, they result in geographical governance based on arbitration about available land uses between these agents, in a context of reduction of available land resources. The study of several urban projects in river cities is a fertile fieldwork to analyze this governance. In these cities, there are lots of exchanges between the agents of the field of the river (port authorities, inland waterway managers, transport and logistics firms) and the agents of the field of the urban government and development (the different local and national governments, developer firms and urban development public corporations). These exchanges, set up to run river and port projects, are concerned with large area spaces in the heart of urban agglomerations. The land values of these areas are often much higher than the traditional industrial uses that are theirs. Thus, in river cities, the urban development stakes are characterized by tensions between urban renewal of river port wastelands and industrial and productive activities maintaining. Land negotiations are the driving forces behind governances between agents and spaces of different status. Several French cases studies will enable us to analyze this governance, i.e. these relationships between economic agents and urban agents. Both the participation of a port authority in an urban development project on port spaces and the contribution of a municipality in a port development project will be studied. On the contrary, the case of oppositions or indifferences between port authority and municipality on specific places will be also analyzed. These examples enable us to approach the different dimensions of these exchanges. French cases studies are stimulating from the perspective of a geographical approach of governance field because river and port spaces are most of all state property in France. These lands, often located in the heart of urban agglomerations, are not historically part of the field of local public policies. Thus, the negotiations between land uses in towns (residential versus production) are deployed on different property lands (urban property lands versus state property lands). By this way, they are displaying the general complexity of the compromises which have to be found in urban spaces where land resources are limited. It shows which kinds of governance are developing around specific projects and spaces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".