10.1177/0739456X03261282 ARTICLEvan Horen, Leaf, & PinnawalaLocalizing a Global Discipline Localizing a Global Discipline Designing New Planning Programs in Sri Lanka
Bibliographic record
Abstract
degree programs in urban and regional planning in collaboration with the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia, Canada. These three new planning programs are intended to complement the only other plan-ning program in Sri Lanka—the well-established planning degree that has been offered at the University of Moratuwa since 1975. Western universities working together with universities in developing countries to establish new planning programs is nothing new.1 Many of the earlier initiatives in the 1960s and 1970s were driven by the notion that planning programs were to be rooted in the social and cultural specifics of the developing countries in which the new programs were being set up, rather than importing content from North America. This dualistic perspective represents one of two major perspectives informing the design of planning curricula in developing countries. The dualistic perspective argues that there are signif-icant differences in value systems, stages of development, and socioeconomic priorities between rich and poor countries, and, consequently, planning education should reflect those differences (see, for example, Oberlander 1962).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.983 | 0.971 |
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".