The Smart City – Does the Individual Matter?
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
Early smart city projects tended to be technology-driven, conceiving of the citizen as a data provider. New citizen-centered projects have emerged that challenge the role of the individual in these second-generation smart cities. While some works describe the political role that individuals play in these cities, they only indirectly address the place of technology in determining the participation of the individual in these projects. In this article, we draw on the work done on another technical system—cyberspace—to address the relationship between individuals and technology in the smart city and its consequences. Adapting a typology initially developed for cyberspace and using examples of the City of Montréal, we identify three potential categories of the individual’s role within the smart city: (1) Active role (involved individual), (2) Passive role (synchronized individual), and (3) Victim (disadvantaged individual). We show that the individual is a misinformed figure, despite attempts to focus smart development on citizens. Moreover, we posit that the individual cannot have a real political role as long as the political vision of the city does not precede the technical dimension.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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