The Impact of Urban Democracy as a Policy in Evolution and Developing the Master Plan of the City
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 research aims to build a comprehensive cognitive framework about the policy of urban democracy in developing the master plan of the existing city and the interconnection of its spaces with each other spatially. Previous literature indicated that the evolutionary development of master plan is obtained through a gradual approach led by citizens and local authorities. The research classified the levels of democracy depending on the method of community participation into two styles: formal and intellectual. The hypothesis of the research is that, the idea of urban democracy in the master plans of city centers depends on the creation of the integrating the design or legislative strategies of urban democracy. And presenting Arab and international experiences to reach a comprehensive theoretical framework for the politics of democracy in developing the master plan for the purpose of enhancing cohesion, feeling, interaction, prosperity and belonging to the place. The research found a number of different indicators for the development of the master plan, including activating the will of the user in the integration and development of the city and identifying the elements of the city's structuring, which is represented by the interaction and democratic response in the processes of development and transformation or the expression of the distinct user personality for every place and time.
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 | 0.001 | 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