Geographies of land use: Planning, property, and law
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
Abstract In this article, we draw attention to the geographies of “land use,” which to date have been underexamined and undertheorized within urban geographical literature. To do so, we review insights from a growing set of literature in geography, urban planning, law, and socio‐legal studies, among others, to outline how urban space is shaped through the relationships between land use, planning, property, and law. We first look at the relationships between land‐use planning and power relations in place. We go on to focus on the law, and the ways in which it structures and controls land use, property, and social activities in the city. We conclude by reviewing how law and legal concepts can serve as instruments of resistance and a source of alternate futures in urban spaces. In sum, we argue that a deeper interrogation of land use , and its relationships to planning, property, and law, can lead to a better understanding of how liberal‐democratic cities operate, and offer tools for resisting opaque and legalistic land‐use planning programs.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it