Editorial: plaNext and planning in transition (2015–2025)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When plaNext first emerged in 2015, it was born out of a decision that the field of spatial planning needed a dedicated platform for emerging scholars who would highlight new voices. Ten years later, the world we plan for has shifted significantly, and so has our journal. The purpose of this special issue “plaNext in Transition 2015–2025” is to reflect on the journal’s evolution over the past decade and to envision its future trajectory for the next ten years. It marks a moment of reflection and reimagination. Over the past decade, plaNext has accompanied and often anticipated momentous changes: the climate emergency transitioning from future threat to present crisis, new movements for social justice and spatial equity gaining visibility, digitalization and AI altering how we imagine urban futures, and an increasingly interconnected yet still fractured global planning discourse. We thought that it would be interesting to see how plaNext has evolved over the last decade, and to reflect on the next decade for the journal, especially as the name of the journal implies to “plan” what is coming “next” as in “next generation of planners and planning as a discipline”. This special issue brings together contributions on both editorial developments and future directions, as well as on current planning debates, challenges, and emerging trends.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".