An international comparison of the scope and instruments of local spatial planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyses (based on multidimensional criteria) land-use plans at a local level (using selected cities as examples) and their relationships to crucial planning issues identified at both national and local levels. The planning approaches of cities from the following countries were compared: Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Ghana, Iran, Mexico, Mongolia, Portugal and Poland. These countries are diverse in terms of their legal, political, cultural and geographical perspectives. Across these diverse countries, comparisons were made of local spatial plans (as enacted in specific cities), with regard to their legal features. From this, directions for a possible universal debate of local-level spatial plans as currently emerging is proposed. Based on the comparison undertaken, it is possible that the spatial plans studied designate zones of land use and detailed principles (including parameters) of development for cities. In some countries, attempts have also been made for the plans to solve spatial problems more broadly, for example by linking strategic planning objectives with the spatial development sphere. This article was published open access under a CC BY licence: https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/
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 | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".