MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2934503507 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v14-n1-20-30

Towards socially sustainable urban design: Analysing actor–area relations linking micro-morphology and micro-democracy

2019· article· en· W2934503507 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilKU LeuvenUniversity College LondonJoint Programming Initiative Urban EuropePolitecnico di Torino
KeywordsCrowdsourcingCorporate governancePublic spaceDemocracyReal estateDeliberationSustainabilityPublic relationsPublic housingNeighbourhood (mathematics)BusinessPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsPoliticsEngineeringEconomic growthArchitectural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The social sustainability of cities is increasingly assisted by smart apps, social media and the awareness of how social interactions relate to urban space. Within cities, communities or neighbourhoods are no longer easily spatially defined. Similarly, how a community might govern itself does not necessarily follow traditional, simple, spatially self-contained loci. The role of housing management companies, managing a portfolio of social and private housing, adds additional complexity to relations between individual properties and their collective governance, at a level below that of the local municipality. meanwhile, the advent of online crowdsourcing and crowdfunding poses new challenges about the influence of outsiders and ‘who gets a vote’—and who uses their vote—when making decisions about a neighbourhood’s future. This poses a number of challenges for planning and local democracy in the smarter city.
\n
\nThis paper reports on new research from the Incubators of Public Spaces project, involving the use of a novel online design and crowdsourcing platform as an experimental tool for public participation, in the case of a london housing estate. In particular, this chapter analyses relationships between different actors and instruments involved in the governance of the different areas or territories of the housing estate.
\n
\nWe report on the challenges of holistically engaging a focused yet diverse pool of users in the regeneration of a series of courtyards associated with social housing blocks. This involves non-trivial decisions about user access rights within the platform, which becomes a challenge of reinventing a micro-scale democracy. by modifying standard approaches to social network analysis, the paper develops and demonstrates visualisation of the socio-spatial relationships, linking actor networks and area structures, applied in a novel way to a site’s micro-morphology. This research, yet in progress, can help inform a new generation of planning procedures for more equitable, inclusive and hence socially sustainable cities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it