The efficacy of statutory public hearings for planning: A comparison of four Canadian jurisdictions
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".