AN EXAMINATION OF THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT BY THE LINDSAY ADMINISTRATION REGARDING ITS LOWER MANHATTAN EXPRESSWAY AS AN URBAN HIGHWAY PLANNING IN NEW YORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1960s, the conflict between Robert Moses, chairman of the New York state/city-affiliated highway authority and Jane Jacobs, urban sociologist helping the residents oppose the highway, over how to remodel the city of New York symbolized the sharpening of the dispute between state and local administrations versus local community, and its turning point in highway planning philosophy. The most conflicting case was the interstate highway named the Lower Manhattan Expressway (Lomex) crossing the southern tip of densely built-up Manhattan Island, the district of SoHo. Both Moses and Jacobs had to leave the scene in 1968, because Moses resigned his post and Jacobs left for Canada after her arrest at the public hearing of Lomex. The John Lindsay Administration of New York City eventually had to accept the duty to tackle this issue. Despite several books written by eminent writers such as Robert Caro (1974), Anthony Flint (2009), Scott Larson (2013) and Jean Dory (2018), they focused on the relationship between Moses and Jacobs from the perspective of their conflicts. Therefore, it was unclear what kind of administrative actions had been taken by the Lindsay administration during the period since 1968 until Governor Rockefeller’s termination notice of Lomex project in 1971. The author tried to clarify the process between through discovering relevant public information and documents concerned with this issue.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".