Creative or instrumental planners? Agency and structure in their institutional and political economy context
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
The paper casts light on structural factors limiting and shaping the actions of planners. In doing so it attempts to compensate for the emphasis planning theory places on the agency dimension of planners at the expense of the structural limitations they encounter. The paper draws from Giddens’s structuration theory, which depicts how the imbrication of agency and structure within institutional contexts sets the resources and constraints environment wherein social actors function. In order to adapt structuration theory to the reality of planners, the paper explores how motivations driving their agency take form largely within their professional realm. It also highlights the role institutional dynamics and political economy play in setting the structural context in which planners operate. The empirical substance originates from two junctures in the evolution of Toronto planning. The paper paints the picture of knowledgeable and reflective planners making informed decisions within changing structural contexts they do not control.
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