Governance: How to Achieve Urban Growth Management in Practice, a Practitioner perspective
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
Auckland, like the majority of Australasian cities, has developed and is seeking to implement a range of urban growth policy responses designed to address the problems created by urban sprawl and encourage better designed, transport oriented urban developments, which will improve the quality of their city’s built environment. To date the implementation of these approaches in Auckland has been problematic. This paper examines the governance arrangements used by a range of pacific rim new world cities, including Auckland, Vancouver, Seattle, Portland and Melbourne to examine how they have addressed these issues from an urban planning practitioner perspective. This paper (jointly authored by Errol Haarhoff) presents interim results, drawing upon the experiences of 40 senior urban planning professionals and examines the policy and implementation approaches used and considers how they determine whether their policy approaches have achieved their desired policy outcomes in practice.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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