Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay explores the evolving role of urban planners in the face of advancing technology and automation, emphasizing the need for planners to focus on aspects of city-building that technology cannot replicate, such as community engagement. Current practices often reduce engagement to mere information collection, which can be automated, thereby diminishing community agency. To redefine the planner's role, the essay draws on the political philosophy of Simone Weil, Paulo Freire’s community development theory and critical pedagogy, and Communicative Planning Theory (CPT). Weil’s emphasis on the obligations of citizens and the needs of the human soul, Freire’s advocacy for critical pedagogy to empower communities, and CPT’s focus on discourse and consensus-building collectively suggest that planners should function as ensurers, educators, and facilitators. The essay argues for a shift from traditional planning roles towards a collaborative approach where planners ensure community needs are met, educate stakeholders through critical dialogue, and facilitate meaningful engagement processes. This transformation aims to foster a sense of agency in communities, positioning them as active contributors to city development rather than passive participants.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".