A Methodological Framework for Transdisciplinary Urban Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Urban planning research is challenged by combining scientific rigour with societal relevance, especially in terms of urban sustainability at local government level. Transdisciplinarity aims to combine rigour with relevance. But how should urban planning researchers, practitioners and other stakeholders collaborate and conduct transdisciplinary research? This chapter reviews the literature on transdisciplinarity for urban sustainability and, instead of advocating specific methods, presents a holistic and flexible methodological framework. The heuristic framework serves to help stakeholders navigate transdisciplinarity and make more considered decisions when conducting transdisciplinary research for urban planning. Practitioner reflections on the framework are provided using the example of Planning Support Science and a customised Planning Support System for climate resilient planning at the local government level in South Africa.
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 | 0.035 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".