The efficacy of statutory public hearings for planning: A comparison of four Canadian jurisdictions
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
Statutory public hearings for urban development proposals are among the oldest venues for public participation in urban planning in the U.S., Canada, and many other jurisdictions, and the most common venues for resident participation in planning. A number of scholars discuss public hearings in their work. However, such depictions are often contradictory and do not test nor examine whether public hearings allow residents to influence planning decisions. This paper tests the efficacy of statutory public hearings and examines whether institutional difference (at-large vs. ward-based councils) and contextual difference (suburban municipalities vs. their urban cores) affect residents’ ability to influence municipal councilors via public hearings. The paper finds that resident opposition to development at public hearings does not result in substantial changes to development proposals. However, contextual and institutional differences do alter how councilors respond to resident opposition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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