Unpacking the Notion of Civic Interaction in Environmental Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controversial environmental planning processes have enjoyed scholarly attentions for more than three decades. Starting with the studies of grassroots protests against the disposal of hazardous waste, the attention became centered around the adversarial relationships among the parties. The actors have been predominantly viewed as pre-made figures who often act in a reactionary manner. We adopt a civic perspective to go beyond the established adversarial view of the planning process and explore the undercurrents that shape actor interaction. Based on the inductive study of three cases of planning incineration plants in Ontario, Canada, we argue that, by applying different markers, actors continuously and simultaneously construct themselves and their opponents as civic actors. We show that civic interaction is a multidimensional construct that includes two starting, disposition-based conditions of civic duty and self-interest. We thus illustrate that it is not merely the opposition between the proponents and opponents of the project that influences how planning processes unfold, but much more complex dynamics of constructing self and the other, and balancing civic-centered and self-centered priorities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".