The impact of urban commons in official planning practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amid crisis and austerity, spatial planning in Southern European countries has been used as a ‘prototype’ for new rounds of neoliberalization and a political space that continuously develops through top-down/bottom-up dialectic conflicts. Within this context, planning practice and legislative framework in Greece has focused on attracting direct foreign investments by privatizing big parcels of public property. Despite these restrictive conditions, new partnerships between urban commons and local authorities emerge and highlight the urban commons’ potential as a stakeholder in the planning process. We study the history and interview the key actors of an initially informal community of citizens, who created and manage a space of urban gardening in an urban void, in a former military camp in the metropolitan area of Thessaloniki. They set forth an eco-friendly model of space management based on inclusion and participation. This informal community participated in a network of initiatives and associations, which defended the former military camp area from privatization and demanded its conversion to a green area. A partnership between municipal authorities and urban commons was established and after a long struggle, in December 2020, this partnership achieved a decisive victory against current central government policies: The formal master plan of the area, designating the space as a public green area, was approved by the ministry. Starting from this case study, we discuss the potential of such partnerships in the planning process and how they can change the physical, social and political landscapes surrounding them.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".