Constructive controversies : Redesigning democratic debate and ethical deliberation in the smart city
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Understanding socio-technical controversies as a resource rather than a burden enhances the democratic debate on smart cities. (This thesis)2. The constructive use of socio-technical controversies by making value conflicts explicit and experiential through design, addresses the urgent need to re-enter public values into the democratic processes that surround emerging technologies.(This thesis)3. Without friction no shine: The anticipation and application of Future Frictions shines light on value conflicts in the smart city.(This thesis) 4. To strengthen its role in transdisciplinary collaboration, design needs to further develop its roles as mediator and provocateur in multi-stakeholder settings.(This thesis) 5. To restore the disconnect between economic value and public value in efficiency-driven smart city visions, we must harmonize quantitative and qualitative experiences of the city.6. To realign the academic system with the evolution of (transdisciplinary) research practices, there must be room to recognize different types of academic success.7. Grappling with complexity is a challenge apparent in many fields of inquiry, ranging from theoretical physics to design research.No matter the means of inquiry, the race to address ever-increasing complexity is always run with a lap behind.8. The list of learnings from a PhD journey is long, and those presented in the thesis barely comprise half of them.9. PhD journeys are best captured by 'Geit t neet den boktj 't waal'.10. Life is colored by the chaos of trouble.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".