MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362554753 · doi:10.1080/14649357.2023.2189288

Centering Equity and Justice in Participatory Climate Action Planning: Guidance for Urban Governance Actors

2023· article· en· W4362554753 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Theory & Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainability and Climate Change Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)ReflexivityCitizen journalismCorporate governanceClimate justiceParticipatory action researchPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningAction planParticipatory planningClimate changeSocial equalityPublic relationsPublic administrationSociologyEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEconomicsGeographySocial scienceManagementLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advancing equity and justice in climate action planning (CAP) presents a considerable challenge for urban governance actors. This paper provides necessary and practical guidance for developing participatory approaches that help planners avoid perpetuating dominant knowledge systems and corresponding planning interventions that have brought us to the current state of climate change and social inequity. Advancing equity and justice in CAP requires reflexive, participatory practice that centers vulnerable residents and supports communication across differences in social position and systems of meaning. These actions require a fuller accounting of the underlying social processes that drive vulnerability to climate 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it