Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, Lefebvre’s theory of space is utilized to understand the competing patterns in the use of public space by two different groups: the general public and homeless people as a sub-group. The general public perceives public space as distinctly separate from private space while the private space of homeless people is public space. This creates a dichotomy in their respective relationships to public space and their competing claims to their respective ways of using it. Despite the fact that homeless people only have public space at their disposal, legislative measures and administrative procedures — such as park bylaws which prohibit setting up temporary abode on parkland — are used to force them to abandon public space. Beyond the realm of legal regimes is the issue of representational space where homeless people are excluded from public space, which is seen as a sphere of consumption and enjoyment. Redevelopment plans (i.e., gentrification processes), are a prime example of a city’s representation of space. The reality of propertylessness means that homeless persons are forced to live their lives at the mercy of property owners. In an attempt to maintain the spatial practices of the housed majority, the city aggressively enacts a system of control which places homeless persons in a situation of constantly transgressing the legal regime that threatens their practices of survival.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.091 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".