MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991963345

Jane Jacobs is still here: Proceedings of the Conference Jane Jacobs 100: her legacy and relevance in the 21st century

2018· book· en· W6991963345 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Repository (Delft University of Technology) · 2018
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErasmus+Relevance (law)PopularityUrban planningEvent (particle physics)Human geographySpace (punctuation)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the occasion of Jane Jacobs’ 100 anniversary, the chair of Spatial Planning and Strategy of the Delft University of Technology, together with the OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment and the Rotterdam Erasmus University College organised a two-day conference on Jane Jacob’s legacy at TU Delft on 24-25 May 2016. This event was complemented one year later by a ‘Jane Jacobs Year’ closing event. <br/><br/>We wished to celebrate the life and accomplishments of one of the most important urban thinkers of our time, someone who has influenced generations of designers and planners and others concerned with the built environment: the great Jane Jacobs.<br/><br/>Jacobs’ theories and ideas are seminal to many different academic fields: urban design, planning, architecture, sociology, human geography, environmental psychology, economic geography and many more. Her writings have been influential for more than five decades. This alone tells us of her importance for urban studies and for understanding the complex relationship between urban space and society. <br/><br/>This is reflected, among other things, in the immense popularity of Jane’s ideas among young planners and designers today. Among a number of male planners who influenced urban theory in the 20th century, Jane Jacobs distinguishes herself not only as one of the few women able to break the ceilings of this male-dominated profession, but simply as the most influential of them all. This is ironic, since Jane Jacobs would hardly see herself as a planner.<br/><br/>Maybe, like Roberta Gratz (who was a friend of Jacobs’), she was an ‘anti-planner’, someone with a keen eye for careful empirical observation, for whom cities ought to be understood from the careful exploration of how the built environment influences and is influenced by human life. Jacobs was an astute observer of the life of cities and the processes that produce both cities and citizenship.<br/><br/>In their contributions, the authors of the texts included in this book demonstrate how Jacobs is still relevant as a theorist in the realms of politics, economics and design, and how she can also help us understand how urban form yields meaning. But they also criticise and review her ideas in light of the experiences accumulated in more than 50 years since her main works were published, and the perspectives of places that have little similarity to New York or Toronto. This is relevant, because indeed Jane Jacobs’ ideas are being reviewed reinterpreted and reinvented, and occasionally refuted, in contexts as diverse as Cairo, São Paulo or Addis Ababa. And it’s high time this happens. <br/><br/>The conference aimed to explore those new insights on Jacobs’ legacy and to take her ideas forward in the context of globalisation, internationalisation and accelerated urbanisation in places like China, India and Brazil. The intensity and scale of current urbanization is unprecedented and new challenges have emerged since she published her texts. How are the ideas of Jane Jacobs still relevant for the understanding of the interplay between urban space and society? Or do we need new theories? To what extent have Jacobs’ ideas inspired today’s urban leaders and thinkers? How are they tackling urban issues such as growing inequality, spatial fragmentation, street life, safety in the public space and environmental decline?<br/><br/>We discussed Jacobs’ ideas critically and to take stock of how those ideas have been used, misused and hopefully updated. We invited abstract submissions for six different tracks, exploring essential aspects of Jacobs’ ideas:<br/><br/>Track 1: Jane Jacobs, ethics, and the just city<br/><br/>Track 2: Jane Jacobs and Street Spaces – Streets as public places<br/><br/>Track 3: Jane Jacobs and the dynamics of neighbourhoods<br/><br/>Track 4: Jane Jacobs and the Reshaping old urban fabrics in Chinese cities<br/><br/>Track 5: Jane Jacobs and organised complexity<br/><br/>Track 6: Jane Jacobs and safety in public space<br/><br/> The conference was organised by Roberto Rocco (TU Delft Urbanism), Brian Doucet (University of Waterloo, Canada, then Erasmus University College in Rotterdam) and Andre Ouwehand (TU Delft OTB).<br/><br/>For more information, please visit the website https://janejacobs100.co

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Repository (Delft University of Technology)Same topicUrban Design and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207