Promoting a master plan by encouraging participation: On the culture of convergence in urban planning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this contribution is to help develop a new model of the use of storytelling in planning. To this end, it draws on media studies research as well as literary studies that examine so-called transmedia storytelling devices. The authors use this method to examine the communication strategy around the 2030 Cantonal Master Plan of the Republic and Canton of Geneva (Switzerland). This communication strategy, which attempts to construct the reception of development projects, mobilizes practical regimes that can strengthen the engagement of different audiences with the process of giving narrative form to future urban developments. Communication and public participation in an urban project tend to hybridize, thereby complexifying debates on the use of storytelling in planning, which often contrast its educational use (explain projects to the general public) with its manipulative use (make projects desirable so they may be accepted). By conducting an analysis through the prism of transmedia storytelling, we can simultaneously consider these two aspects of communication in planning.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it