MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387369420 · doi:10.1080/14649357.2023.2262420

Experimental Urban Planning: Tensions Behind the Proliferation of Urban Laboratories in Latin America

2023· article· en· W4387369420 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Theory & Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLatin American Urban Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansPopularityUrban planningTransformative learningPolitical scienceDemocracyEquity (law)PoliticsRegional planningPublic administrationSociologyEconomic growthRegional scienceGeographyPedagogyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban laboratories are gaining popularity in Latin America as spaces of experimentation within urban planning. Based on semi-structured interviews across Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil, we identify two tensions behind the current proliferation of urban laboratories in Latin America. Firstly, the temporary and informal nature of urban laboratories, while promoting innovative thinking and experimentation, limits their long-term impact. Secondly, their reliance on international best practices and highly educated “trendy urbanists” often hinder their ability to foster more democratic and inclusive outcomes. We conclude by reflecting how these tensions highlight larger challenges in realizing the transformative potential of experimental approaches to planning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it