MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402744355 · doi:10.3828/tpr.2024.37

Negotiated strategic regional planning: emerging practice in the London–Cambridge corridor

2024· article· en· W4402744355 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTown Planning Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsRegional scienceStrategic planningRegional planningEnvironmental planningPolitical sciencePublic administrationGeographySociologyManagementUrban planningEngineeringCivil engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Formal regional planning structures were abolished in England in 2011. One response has been to call for their restitution, another has been to argue instead for negotiated strategic regional planning. The latter envisages the formation of partnerships in lieu of formal structures, with two key benefits being it is less vulnerable to government tinkering and is more attuned to economic and political actors. We employ a proxy – the UK Innovation Corridor – to look at the possibilities for negotiated strategic planning. This leads us to conclude that a hybrid model of formal and negotiated regional planning would offer a more robust model. This article was published open access under a CC BY licence: https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ .

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.300 · 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