The planning of the new capital of Tanzania: Dodoma, an unfulfilled dream
Bibliographic record
Abstract
to build a new capital city for its country, the main reason being to bring the government closer to the people by choosing a central location. It was argued that then capital, Dar es Salaam was peripherally located and not accessible to the bulk of the people of the country. In 1976 a master plan was prepared by a Canadian firm of planners (PPAL) and was later revised in 1988 due to the deteriorating economic fortunes of the country. The planning of the new capital adopted novel, modern and appropriate concepts to shape the city, starting with the garden city form of the 1976 master plan to the ‘cities ’ concept of 1988. The plan and the concepts proposed drew heavily on overseas models and experiences but there were attempts to integrate Tanzanian political and cultural aspirations into the detailed design of urban areas. The plan adopted an urban concept based on hierarchies of the provision of all types of services; it introduced a man-centred transportation system (linking communities) that is segregated and caters for the use of buses, bicycles and walking as modes of transport; it adopted the concept of mixed densities and social mix in its housing design mirroring Tanzania’s socialist philosophy; and a meeting point was reached in incorporating man and nature principles in the planning of the new capital. These are experiences that can be emulated by planners elsewhere. The Master Plan assumed that resources would be available to build the capital and that the transfer of ministries would take place as expected. However, many of its assumptions were not well founded and up to now implementation has been extremely slow due to budget constraints. To-date the government is still run from both Dar es Salaam and Dodoma,- a very costly exercise indeed. Given more political will, one day the city will see the light of day, but the bottom line is that more resources and implementation capacity has to be greatly increased.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".