Bibliographic record
Abstract
My research paper examines the evolution of counter-planning practices, with a focus on the recent emergence of transgender-centred urban activism. Drawing on an interdisciplinary theoretical framework, the paper argues that we are now witnessing a "fifth wave" of counterplanning, one that centres the experiences and rights of transgender individuals in the built environment. The paper traces the history of counter-planning, beginning with feminist disruptions of malenormative planning, followed by racial, LGBTQ+, and immigrant/migrant-focused waves. It then asserts that the current phase of counter-planning is distinguished by a prioritization of transgender identities, experiences, and claims to the city. Through an analysis of housing, public resources, and urban spaces, the paper explores how transgender activists are using planning mechanisms to challenge urban transphobia and advocate for transgender people's right to the city. Grounded in an interdisciplinary framework that draws on urban theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and queer theory, this research contributes to emerging scholarship on the intersections of transgender identities, urban planning, and spatial justice. By elevating transgender counter-planning practices, the paper aims to inform more inclusive and equitable approaches to the production of urban space.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".