Assessing the Rise of Dedicated Digital Engagement Platforms for Local Planning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digitally mediated participation in planning processes has grown significantly. In an emergent digital turn for participatory planning scholarship, there is a growing body of research attempting to trace this growth and grapple with its implications. This paper explores how planning scholars and practitioners can deepen their critical stance toward digital modes of participatory planning. In Canada, this approach becomes especially important given the recent and widespread adoption of a specific digital platform type used to support participatory decision-making at the municipal level. Across the country, many towns and cities have embraced what I call Dedicated Digital Engagement Platforms (DDEPs). Despite their growing influence, these platforms for community involvement have not been previously quantified at a nation-wide level, nor thoroughly examined in planning scholarship. New evidence presented here defines DDEPs and documents the extent of their use by local and regional municipalities across Canada. In light of the growing prominence of these platforms, this article then provides the foundation for a more critical digital participation research agenda that draws on important debates in wider planning theory regarding democratic decision-making, the commercialization of deliberative democracy, and the platformization of public participation.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it