Youth Participation in Transportation Planning: The City of Toronto’s Youth Engagement Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilizing the principles of critical discourse analysis (CDA), I decode the power relations embedded in the 2015 City of Toronto’s Youth Engagement Strategy report to allow for a solid understanding of the framework used by planners in their proposed “engagement” with youth and in (dis)locating “transportation” in their planning (or non-planning) for youth. With the report stating transit and transportation as the leading issue the youth care about, I argue the misconception that the youth of today are not concerned with transportation planning. The traditional adult-oriented approach to transportation planning has served the youth by default, and this is very concerning. The youth deserve to be invited into the decision-making process as well as informed as to the impact of their participation. We cannot call for youth participation if that participation does not have meaning. The City of Toronto’s Planning Division needs to invite youth voices if they are prepared to listen to them. Youth participation is a promise we make to young people. Their idealism, strength, and creativity are a gift to us, and we need to treat it as such.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".