Mobilizing legal expertise in and against cities: urban planning amidst increased legal action in Bogotá
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
In the past decade, there has been a rise in legal action around urban policy and planning in Colombia. Legal expertise has been mobilized by a plethora of actors, including social movements, local politicians, neighborhood groups and individual citizens. This has resulted in legal experts and judges often dictating how social housing, transport corridors, public space, or waste management schemes ought to be implemented by municipal administrations. In this context, mayors and planners complain that the increasing involvement of the judiciary in urban planning drains local resources and undermines the power of mayors to set and implement the political agenda they were democratically elected to execute. In this article, we analyze the rise of legal action against urban planning in Bogotá and conclude by proposing a research agenda for socio-legal and urban scholars interested in further exploring the potential implications of the increasing mobilization of legal expertise in urban planning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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