Public Participation in Planning as Urban Citizenship: Contrasting Two Conceptualizations of Citizenship in Toronto’s Ward 20
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
In the past four decades public participation has become widespread in urban planning and more generally in urban governance because it is believed that outcomes that result from deliberation and dialogue are better and more just, and because decisions that follow consultation are believed to have more legitimacy. In planning for redevelopment, participation may be particularly crucial because established communities are disrupted. However, ‘public participation’ is a difficult concept to nail down. Participatory processes are defined and implemented in flexible ways that can empower residents but can also constrain their ability to meaningfully engage with decision-making. This paper argues that public participation in planning decisions represents an exercise of urban citizenship, and different conceptualizations of citizenship underlie differences in how planners and residents engage in participatory processes. Through a comparison of planners’ and residents’ understanding of public participation in redevelopment decisions in Toronto’s Ward 20, a ‘limited’ and ‘expansive’ conceptualization of urban citizenship are contrasted. The former conceptualizes urban citizenship in terms of knowledge-sharing within a broader governance system and emphasizes citizens’ responsibility to participate. The latter seeks to expand democracy by claiming a partial ‘right to the city’.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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