Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dashboards are not new to planning and much has been written about them especially around the user experience and technological failures. Missing in the literature, however, is a discussion around the processes behind making an urban data dashboard and what that process can do in terms of building relationships and supporting collaborative planning. Through a case study of a dashboard making process in Kingston, Ontario between September 2020 and August 2023, the authors show how the dashboard making process led to technological innovation, improved collaboration amongst the partners, strengthened relationships and improved organizational and management processes for all partners involved. More than a technocratic or rational planning exercise, dashboard making has the potential to be a conduit for collaborative planning which is a cornerstone of a healthy, democratic society.
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 | 0.024 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".