Land developers as institutional and postpolitical actors: Sites of power in land use policy and planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land developers play an active role as institutional actors that shape the development and governance of urban regions. In this paper, we find that developers not only influence state institutions governing land use, they are place-based actors whose influence is normalized as invited strategic stakeholders in planning exercises. Our analysis highlights the complementarity of institutional and postpolitical theories in offering a nuanced understanding of the multi-faceted and multi-scalar relationships among powerful actors engaged in land development processes. Postpolitical theories highlight the participatory processes of inclusion and exclusion in collaborative-based planning exercises that privilege certain stakeholders and exclude others. Through the lens of institutionalist theory, we move beyond specific land conflicts to focus on the day-to-day interactions and institutionalized roles of key actors, ideas and political influences in shaping contested land policy and outcomes. The analysis is based on multi-year research projects that drew upon interviews, observation and document analysis of key actors’ engagement in initiatives to formulate and implement growth management policies in the Toronto region.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".