Bibliographic record
Abstract
The planning for future transport and its infrastructure is deeply political. Yet, how we understand re-politicisation, and what those efforts tell us about what is political in the planning for future cities, remains under explored. One lens through which to explore these acts is to consider the role of urban coalitions in drawing attention to the dominant politics of planning and setting the ground for the re-politicisation of transport infrastructure futures. Drawing on the work of post-foundational scholars Mouffe and Rancière, this paper examines the interplay between de-politicisation and re-politicisation and how two urban coalitions negotiated this landscape in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area during a sustained period of contestation surrounding the proposal of new transport infrastructure. Through this analysis, this paper draws on in-depth interviews with coalition members, transport planners, politicians and engaged citizens to illustrate how these urban coalitions produced a ‘collective will’ and a struggle towards a ‘consensus cure’ in their re-politicising actions. This paper reveals how coalition-led re-politicisation establishes the grounds for the politics to shift on contested future transport proposals and offers insight into the incremental and oftentimes incomplete ways re-politicisation nurtures transformational change.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".