Planning for People: Integrating Social Issues and Processes into Planning Practice
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
This paper rejects the view that planners plan for use, not people. We observe that planners often see human needs and behavior to be peripheral to practice, focusing on financial, technical, material or environmental con- siderations. We argue that people — through social issues, social pro- cesses, and social organization — are fundamental to all planning activities. Therefore, all planners must more effectively integrate the social dimen- sions of planning into practice. The article first discusses several shifts in the social sciences, and second, examines three Canadian case studies: ecosystem planning and management in a UNESCO biosphere reserve; infrastructure planning in a northern resource town; and regional planning for homelessness in a medium-size metropolitan region. The paper con- cludes with a discussion of common strategies, successes, and challenges, highlighting the role of planners in the integration of social dimensions into planning 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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