Public perceptions of Montréal's streets: Implications for inclusive public space making and management
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
How urban residents perceive and value the quality of public space remains crucial to inclusive urban planning and design. Yet, understanding these perceptions is often complicated by the diverse social and cultural backgrounds of city dwellers. This article examines how citizens in Montréal assess their streetscapes across multiple criteria, such as accessibility, comfort, and aesthetics, and reports on rating and ranking experiments that reveal notable discrepancies in individual perceptions, particularly on inclusivity-related dimensions. More convergent assessments emerged during group discussions. Building on these findings, this study offers a framework for integrating individual and collective assessments, providing insights for municipal planners. The results underscore the importance of localized, context-sensitive evaluations and illustrate how stakeholder engagement, especially in smaller focus groups, can reconcile differing views on what constitutes a welcoming and inclusive urban environment. We conclude that responsive public space management, grounded in iterative, localized participatory processes, can enhance accessibility and foster inclusivity by incorporating regular small-group dialogues that identify the diverse cultural and social needs of residents. Such an approach promotes a dynamic sense of publicness, supports adaptive management practices, and contributes to the welfare of diverse urban communities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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