MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W853191667

Global Metropolitan Regions in Asia and the Challenge for Governance

2014· article· en· W853191667 on OpenAlex
Qian Zhu

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTown Planning Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Zones and Regional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaContext (archaeology)Political scienceCorporate governanceEast AsiaPublic administrationEconomic growthLibrary scienceChinaGeographyLawManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.217 · 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