MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7094275492

INVESTIGATION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ”SMALL DEVIATION”

2017· article· sv· W7094275492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · 2017
Typearticle
Languagesv
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Work (physics)Term (time)Plan (archaeology)Quarter (Canadian coin)Monopoly
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: In Sweden, a municipal plan monopoly is used to regulate what, how and where you can or cannot build. How the plans, in the shape of comprehensive and detailed development plans, are formed is in turn regulated by the Planning and Building Act (PBL). Throughout history, Swedish building regulations have gone through many more or less extensive changes with the overall goal to improve our built environment and simplify or streamline the planning and building processes. From this comes the term small deviation, which in PBL is used to allow building permits that deviate from the detailed development plan, provided that the deviation is small. There is, however, no explanation in the law as to what this might mean in practice, and so there are large differences in terms of interpretation and application. The goal of this study is to analyse how the term small deviation according to PBL, chapter 9 § 31b is interpreted and applicated in building permit trials. Method: The methods used in this study are interviews (with building permit officers) and document analysis (of building permit decisions from quarter two, 2016, and court cases from the Land and Environment Court of Appeal). Findings: How deviations are interpreted does indeed vastly differ, and while the municipalities do work in a similar manner to determine whether a deviation could be considered small, there are significant differences. Only in the matter of built area on a property, the three studied municipalities all have different practices in what size of violation may be considered small, and the building permit officers in one of these municipalities still deviate from this. In eight out of 13 court cases, the Land and Environment Court of Appeal judged differently from the previous authorities. Only in one did all authorities agree. Implications: The findings implicate the following: There are remarkable differences in how small deviation is assessed. De biggest differences are between the local building permit officers and the Land and Environment Court of Appeal. The factors that affect the assessment on a municipal level the most are experience, precedent cases and discussion with colleagues. Limitations: A wider study containing more information from several municipalities and an analysis of the material accessible to the municipalities for guidance to assess deviations would provide a clearer answer as to what affects the interpretation. Keywords: PBL, Planning and Building Act, building permits, law interpretation, interpretation, deviation, small deviation, deviation from detailed development plan, sensemaking, the Land and Environment Court of Appeal

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)Same topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207