MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162095415 · doi:10.82308/9725

A city for all: Contested narratives of participatory reforms, placemaking practices, and 'good' city-building

2023· dissertation· en· W7162095415 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Gelbard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlacemakingCitizen journalismNarrativePerformative utteranceContext (archaeology)VisionUrban planningParticipatory planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation examines the progressive visions, participatory priorities, and cultural strategies enacted by citizen-engaged planning in Ottawa, Ontario. With more inclusive participation and more diverse representation, formal urban planning processes set up by the City of Ottawa establish participatory placemaking as a principle of ‘good’ city-building and as a route towards social and spatial justice. In the context of persistent urban inequities and renewed urban social movements, this research builds on the work of many scholars and community activists who raise concerns about the ongoing social, spatial, and economic marginalization of difference through progressive reforms. It examines participatory placemaking, with specific attention to performance, performativity, and counter-narratives. A site study of planning in Ottawa and three case studies shed light on the development and evolution of participatory placemaking in Ottawa between 2006 and 2018. The three cases are: the development of the Ottawa Music Strategy and safe space policies as part of the cultural revitalization of the arts and entertainment district; the construction of the Charlie Bowins Skatepark as part of the rehabilitation of McNabb Park; and the official designation of Le/The Village during the rehabilitation of the Bank Street mainstreet. Additional stories of people and place, planning policy, and site-based public and subcultural histories thicken the narratives of each case. Performative narrative analysis identifies and assesses alignments between each of the cases with common urban narratives, normative values and visions of the ‘good’ city, and enacted group identities. This research then engages with theories of social reproduction, systems of oppression, performativity, and non-reformist reforms to develop critical narrative-based frameworks for spatial justice analyses across the different groups and stories. Critical autoethnography positions punk subculture and scenes in tension with prevailing planning, placemaking, community, and social justice narratives. First-person storytelling, song writing, and zine making based on the author’s participation in the Ottawa punk scene are included as critical re-readings and radical counter-narratives. As this research shows, participatory placemaking can be read as having made space for some previously excluded groups in formal city planning; contributing to greater representations of diversity in public places; and acting as a catalyst for cultural and economic revitalization. Yet, the production of some good for some groups is not a sufficient base to conclude that participatory placemaking is transforming our cities into inclusive, equitable, and prosperous places for all. The contested evaluations and critical re-readings in this dissertation point to performative narratives of progressive values as also working to obscure structural inequities, reproduce harm, and efface places of difference while maintaining the social order and hierarchies of privileged interests and oppressive systems. The research also shows that when burdened by normative structures, restrictive processes, and oppressive systems, marginalized and/or alternative groups demonstrate an aptitude for acts of survival, resistance, and refusal that reveal the limitations of official city plans and processes, respond to group needs and aspirations, and enact their claim the right to the city

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0420.117
Scholarly communication0.0200.013
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207