Experts and amateurs in the development of integrated community sustainability plans: Linking culture and sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005, the federal government introduced a requirement that Canadian communities develop Integrated Community Sustainability Plans (ICSPs) in order to access Gas Tax money. These plans were to be based on a four-pillar model of sustainability that included not only environmental responsibility, but also economic health, social equity and cultural vitality. As communities set out to fulfill this requirement, they had to adopt new techniques to describe relationships among the four pillars and to engage a wide variety of stakeholders in the development of the plans. This article explores how ideas about culture and sustainability circulated among both experts (cultural planners) and non-experts (citizens), including the part played by new technologies in the exchange of ideas among stakeholders. It explores how the public was involved in determining the 'public interest' in these areas, and examines how experts interpreted their roles in the ICSP development process and engaged in the various stages of facilitating, guiding, framing, and informing public deliberation. The article also considers the contributions that both experts and non-experts made in articulating a vision for culture within the four-pillar model of sustainability.
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 | 0.033 | 0.042 |
| 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 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".