Bibliographic record
Abstract
The APSA 20th Anniversary Congress, Taipei, 1-3 November 2013The 12th International Congress of APSA (the Asian Planning Schools Associa- tion), celebrating the Association's 20th anniversary, was held at the National Taiwan University, Taipei, from 1st to 3rd November 2013. The congress hosted participants from seventeen countries, including seven from beyond Asia: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. The theme of the congress was global metropolitan regions in Asia and their governance challenges; overall, 150 papers grouped into ten sub-themes were presented and discussed.The congress was inaugurated by retrospective remarks from the APSA Presi- dent, Yukio Nishimura. He recalled that the first International Congress of City and Regional Planning Schools/Departments of Asian Universities was held in Tokyo, Japan, in 1991. During that meeting, the representatives from the fifteen Asian planning schools discussed planning education and practice in Asia; the common opinion being that Asian planning schools should develop their own planning theories and methods specifically for Asian cities, rather than relying upon Western approaches. At that time, it was agreed that the Asian Planning Schools Association should be established to provide a forum for idea development and exchange. Two years later, in 1993, Hong Kong hosted the second congress, during which the Asian Planning Schools Associa- tion was officially established. The 2013 International Congress of Asian Planning Schools Association in Taipei thus marked the 20th anniversary of APSA as a separate international academic society.The context for the congressReflecting its location, many of the keynote and sponsored talks at the 2013 congress focused on planning and development in Taiwan, beginning with a keynote speech entitled 'Experiments in democratic planning - Taiwan 1987-2013', delivered by John K. C. Liu (Building and Planning Research Foundation, National Taiwan University). Liu argued that Taiwan is an ongoing experiment in many ways - culture, economy, politics, arts and society. An example of this is the turbulent geo-politics, which needs to consider an indigenous population of approximately half a million people; within the forum of planning, Taiwan plans to develop land use regulations that are more suitable for indigenous land uses.Since 1987, momentum has been growing for a new phase of experimental democ- racy, leading to free speech and general elections. Against this backdrop, Taiwan started to address the issue of democratic planning in 1988, which includes planning for cultural democracy to address cultural variation and the needs of indigenous peoples. For instance, community-based decision-making has been suggested to balance the interests of the privileged and the poor and help counter the dominant top-down process in governance. In addition, there is concern about the integration of Asian values with Western forms of democracy, including the notions of public rights and justice. Democratic planning in Taiwan and Asia aims to protect both private and public rights, as well as to uphold social equity and justice. From the educational and professional training perspective, Liu maintained that the goal of training profes- sional generalists is of key importance, with cross-disciplinary collaboration being considered essential in moving towards democratic planning. Liu presented several intriguing cases of democratic planning practice in Taiwan. For instance, Pu-yu New Town Plan was presented as a case for democratic planning that respects local Hakka culture and landscape. Another example was the protest against soaring housing costs and its consequences in 1990. In total, Liu proposed four basic principles for democratic planning: professional generalists; cross-disciplinary collaboration; social equity and justice; as well as public participation.The congress themesThe main theme of the congress was global metropolitan regions in Asia and their challenges for governance. …
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".