Participatory design practice, event (s) and the activation of public space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Festivals and events make use of public space (s) as sites for people to gather in, or process through. In urban planning and design the activation and curation of flexible public spaces which enliven places has gained prominence. On one level, programming public space is eventified to make spaces more interesting and convivial. On the other, the process of participatory design is mediated through “events” that seek to disrupt conventional planning techniques and attract participation from a broader cross section of the community. In this paper, we bring together thinking from urban design and critical event studies to explore two live public space design projects that draw on the event concept in both described forms. Our findings demonstrate that the event format loosens social and spatial relations, opening possibilities for new configurations of public space that would otherwise have been difficult to envisage and realise. Second, we contend that facilitating planning and design processes through the lens of events helps involve a wider set of public(s) to participate and can also make the resultant public space itself more attractive for diverse range of users and uses.
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 | 0.084 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".