A planner's guide to a placemaking practice, a collaborative approach for neighbourhood management : an analysis of the Fort Rouge Neighbourhood Management Plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores placemaking theory in order to define the role of the professional planner to regain and contribute to the art of making places that are meaningful and reflective of the diverse people that inhabit them. In relating placemaking to the planning profession this thesis critically examines the role and process by which the City of Winnipeg Planning and Land Use Division has practiced the making of places through a neighbourhood management approach to local level planning in the Fort Rouge community. Neighbourhood management as demonstrated in this thesis serves more as an approach to enable the City to administratively manage neighbourhoods and less by which citizens can participate in strategically thinking about the collective maintenance, development and management of their neighbourhoods. While the Fort Rouge Neighbourhood Management Plan has outlined community concepts, principles and a strategy for action, it has not provided the community with the underlying objectives of relation and capacity building. This thesis argues that the neighbourhood management approach would be most enabling for both the City of Winnipeg Planning and Land Use Division and citizens through placemaking practice. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".