GIS in land use planning: lessons from critical theory and the Gulf Islands.” J Planning Educ and Research 19:287-96 no 3 Spring 2000 , bibl(s); map(s) World Wide Web: <URL:http://www.uwm.edu/Org/acsp> [cited 30
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does the use of geographic information systems (GIS) affect democratic and sustainable land use planning goals? Government planning offices tend to promote GIS as a technology that will improve government-citizen communication and make land use planning more democratic. This potential, as well as the capacity of GIS to facilitate comprehensive bioregionallandscape planning, has been proposed as a key to land use planning for sustainability. By different groups and to different degrees, GIS is put forth as an answer to big problems of both democracy and sustainability in planning. In this paper, I use critical theory as well as a case study of GIS implementation to examine some impacts of GIS on planning and some directions for improving the relationship. Theory and the experience in the Gulf Islands of British Columbia, Canada, both caution against expecting either democ-racy or sustainability from GIS itself but suggest the useful roles that community and government users may find for the technology in their planning efforts. I begin in the next section with a brief review of critical theory literature, point-ing out the different roles assumed by GIS in the positivist and communicative ac-
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".