MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944014176 · doi:10.1177/0739456x19844571

Unsettling Notions of Planning Competence: Lessons from Studio-Based Learning with Indigenous Peoples

2019· article· en· W2944014176 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Planning Education and Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsIndigenousStudioCompetence (human resources)Indigenous educationSociologyPedagogyColonialismFaithService-learningPsychologyPolitical scienceVisual artsEpistemologySocial psychologyArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on the instructor and student experiences of a service-based learning course with Indigenous peoples, this paper considers how studios develop the skills and competencies outlined by accrediting bodies. Yet, this approach to teaching and learning can also unsettle students’ sense of professional competence and faith in the usefulness of conventional planning methods. In this case, unsettlement was a valuable and productive outcome that supported the development of a more critically reflective approach to working with Indigenous peoples and a newfound appreciation of the need to engage in disquieting conversations about the colonial underpinnings of the planning profession.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.355 · 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