Exploring the Representation of Place-Based Knowledge in Spatial Planning in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial planning is essential in the interdisciplinary management of dynamic coastal environments. However, conventional approaches to spatial planning do not focus on the comprehensive representation and visual communication of place-based knowledge (e.g., Indigenous and Local Knowledge systems). This oversight limits the contextual applicability of planning decisions. To understand this issue’s relevance in Nova Scotia, the suitability of six Decision Support Tools (DST) used in spatial planning for representing local perspectives was explored. Through a scoping review and semi-structured interviews with spatial planners, researchers, and users of coastal environments in Nova Scotia, key characteristics that make DST useful in representing place-based knowledge, as well as certain tool design limitations, were identified. Also identified were the generalized stages of the spatial planning process at which each of the selected DST are most effectively applied. The results are meant to inform the use and design of DST in a way that better account for and serve local coastal users throughout different stages of the spatial planning process, thereby supporting informed and equitable decision-making.
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) | 0.000 | 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".