MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393050968 · doi:10.1177/0739456x241238684

Inclusive Futures? A Systematic Review of Social Equity in Scenario Planning

2024· review· en· W4393050968 on OpenAlexaff
Raphael Anammasiya Ayambire, Markus Moos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Planning Education and Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures contractEquity (law)Social equalityPublic economicsFinancial economicsEconomicsSociologyBusinessActuarial sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scenario planning is a valuable tool for dealing with uncertainty, but little is known about its consideration of social equity. We investigated if and how studies of scenario planning in the peer-reviewed literature address issues of social equity. After reviewing 157 peer-reviewed articles on scenario planning, we find that social equity is either ignored or underemphasized in scenario processes. Integrating social equity principles into the scenario planning method promises to help planners prepare for different social equity outcomes in the future. We suggest ways to incorporate social equity principles, such as recognition, representation, and redistribution, into the scenario planning method.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Planning Education and ResearchSame topicUrban and Rural Development ChallengesFrench-language works237,207