MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020294001 · doi:10.14744/planlama.2020.24471

Konut Piyasası Aktörleri Gözünden Türk Planlama Sistemi

2020· article· tr· W3020294001 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Planning · 2020
Typearticle
Languagetr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a big debate on hierarchical planning system and plan implication processes since mid-1980s. The remarking topics have arisen around the technocratic planning approach that ignores actor participation in the process, results incompetent resource use and reflects societal dynamics ineffectively on spatial plans. The necessity of reforming technocratic approach and replacing it with collaborative approach; and, preregulatory land use plans with spatial strategic plans has been emphasized in order to strongly directing urban development in neoliberal era. The EU integration process stimulated the reforming period and substantial changes have been made on the planning system and regulations since 2003. Although institutional structure reframed and substantial changes made in regulations, amazingly, the hierarchical planning system has protected and technocratic planning is still dominate the plan making processes. Distinctively, the planning regime is recentralized. Recentralized multi-level hierarchical system is bulky and several numbers of responsible authorities make difficult to scrutinize the operations of actors in different levels. Actors and local dynamics are external in the planning process and conventional physical plans direct the urban development primarily rather than strategic plans. The aim of this paper is to investigate the material reflections of new planning regime in Turkey in urban areas as well as in housing construction market. Methodological approach based on old institutional economics. Several interviews were done with governmental institutions, municipalities and market actors in order to reflect insights to understanding the abilities and/or inabilities and capacity of the new regime. A remarkable pattern has arisen on interviews that capable of reflecting the gaps and conflicts of the new regime. Accordingly, hierarchical system causes multi-level markets

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.194 · 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