MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391052439 · doi:10.1080/19460171.2024.2305920

Exploring ethical space in land use planning

2024· article· en· W4391052439 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Policy Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsIndigenousSpace (punctuation)SociologyLand-use planningWork (physics)Intervention (counseling)Power (physics)Land useEngineering ethicsManagement scienceComputer sciencePsychologyEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planning theorists have long called for planning practices that interrogate dominant power imbalances. However, planning policy and practice would benefit from clear frameworks to implement ethical decision-making in land use planning. Ethical Space, a conceptual approach used to balance power between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, may prove to be a critical intervention in the modernist and colonial practice of land use planning. This paper considers how land use planners can apply Ethical Space to their work. Research methods included semi-structured interviews with practitioners, document analysis, and reflective practices. Research findings present theoretical and practical advancements for using Ethical Space in planning theory to advocate for respectful planning practice.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.883
GPT teacher head0.709
Teacher spread0.173 · 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