A comparison of comparisons: Evidence from an international comparative study of ‘smart cities’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every year the list lengthens of cities with some sort of ‘smart city’ public policy. In some, it emerges as the latest in a long line of urban digital and information communication policies. In others, the introduction of the notion of the ‘smart city’ marks a departure from past approaches to public policy. Additionally, the more studies emerge of actual smart city policies, then the less definitional agreement there seems to be. Nevertheless, that we have witnessed in the last two decades the ‘repeated instance’ of smart cities emerging in cities around the world seems incontrovertible. Like so much urban public policy in the current era, how a city arrives at, and makes up, its own version of the ‘smart policy’ often involves comparison and referencing. This is the work of actually existing urban comparisons, those comparisons performed by urban policy makers. This paper draws upon an international comparative research project involving the cases of Barcelona, Calgary, Singapore, Seoul, Taipei, and Toronto. It argues that it is hard to over-estimate the place of cities in the world and the world in cities when understood through the lens of smart city public policymaking. In the cases of the six cities, comparison and referencing of other smart city policies constituted a mode of governance and shaped each city’s policies, as informational infrastructures promoted inter-urban comparisons. This demands we attend to both the routes (their journeys)-and the the roots (their origins) dialectically present in any particular city’s smart city public policy.
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 | 0.032 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".