Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achieving global city status has become an apparent priority for city leaders worldwide. Many embrace the global city ideal as a frame for urban development. In arguments for development that align with the global city ideal, values are at play.\n\nThe thesis tests the claim that global city development is associated with a convergence in “urban development values” across cities, as such values are expressed in long-range city plans. Tandem frame and content analyses are pursued to examine long-range city plans from four North American cities: Toronto and Chicago, both considered to be among the world’s most global cities and with known aspirations to enhance their global standings; and Dallas and Calgary, cities with global aspirations, but the relative positions of which in the global economy do not win them first or second-tier status in city rankings. As a further means of testing whether city leaders’ embrace of the global city ideal is associated with a convergence of values, an exploratory budget analysis is included. \n \nThe study concludes that convergence in urban development values is limited. Local differences mediate the assumed homogenizing influences of globalization, despite shared aspirations of city leaders to enhance the global status of their respective cities. Longstanding cultures of development and planning persist, and urban development values remain distinct.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".