MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604622964 · doi:10.1177/0739456x17700495

The Dilemmas of Equity Planning in the Global South: A Comparative View from Bangkok and Medellín

2017· article· en· W2604622964 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

VenueJournal of Planning Education and Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)PoliticsCitizenshipPerspective (graphical)Political scienceFace (sociological concept)SociologyPublic relationsSocial equalityPublic administrationEconomic growthEconomicsSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines equity planning in the face of growing adversity in cities of the Global South. The literature broadly addresses this question from the perspective of empowered social movements and/or insurgent citizenship practice. The actual experience of how equity practitioners interface with grass-roots efforts, however, remains understudied. Using case study data from urban upgrading programs in Medellín and Bangkok, we show that equity planners can be effective advocates to marginalized communities as they become embedded in local systems of trust. The paper also evinces the limitations and dilemmas planners confront in two extremely complex institutional and political settings.

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)0.004
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 score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.433
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.134 · 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