Place-Based Land Use Planning and Development in Northern Australia: Cape York Peninsula, Queensland
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 purpose of this chapter is to describe how urban and regional planning practice applied to the creation of development plans reinforce social and economic dislocation in remote settlements in Northern Australia. This chapter examines the range of planning policies that affect regional planning and development in remote Queensland using the Cape York region as a case study. The planning literature readily acknowledges that regional economies and land use planning are inter-related, yet little is known about how a change in land use regulation may affect the performance of local and regional economies In urban and regional planning the interaction between regional economies and land use have traditionally been considered through a top-down approach (Kim, 2011). The literature regarding planning for economic development in remote regions in Australia (Harwood et al., 2011) and Canada (Markey et al., 2006, 2008, 2012) highlight the inadequacies of top-down and industry sector-based approaches in favour of a placebased approach, yet the practice of place-based planning remains elusive. This chapter analyses the implications of contemporary planning practice on development opportunities for the Aboriginal people of Cape York in Queensland and provides a conceptual framework for a place-based approach to land use planning for future application. 1.
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