MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396928940 · doi:10.1080/14649357.2024.2345870

Planning the Liveable If Not the Ideal: Frontline Planners’ Discretionary Actions and Inequalities in Everyday Intermittent Water Supply Planning in Tiruppur, India

2024· article· en· W4396928940 on OpenAlexaff
Nidhi Subramanyam

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Theory & Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Governance and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeal (ethics)InequalityEnvironmental planningBusinessWater supplyEnvironmental economicsOperations managementNatural resource economicsEconomicsGeographyEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceEnvironmental engineeringLawMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Millions of urbanites across the Global South receive intermittent water supply (IWS). This paper examines how discretionary action by street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) in everyday water supply planning in IWS systems redistributes water quantities and service quality to alleviate unequal scarcity burdens. Ethnographic findings from the small city of Tiruppur, India, reveal that SLBs’ supply plans aim to distribute water volumes equitably within the network. However, SLBs’ communicative strategies to manage socio-material uncertainties and improve supply predictability, a critical dimension of service quality, reinforce existing socio-spatial inequalities. Rethinking SLBs’ contradictory discretionary actions in everyday water supply plans is crucial for managing water scarcity equitably in the IWS systems of Global South cities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlanning Theory & PracticeSame topicWater Governance and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207