MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W124142646

Manufactured landscapes : a case study of public space in the contemporary city

2004· dissertation· en· W124142646 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amy Marie Siciliano

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2004
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUrban Design and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic spaceDowntownArticulation (sociology)Space (punctuation)PoliticsEveryday lifeSociologyUrban designSquare (algebra)Class (philosophy)Agency (philosophy)Empirical researchSocial spaceAestheticsLiberian dollarMedia studiesPolitical sciencePublic relationsSocial sciencePublicityEngineeringArchitectural engineeringGeographyUrban planningLawEpistemologyCivil engineeringArtBusinessArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis aims to draw attention to the tensions that emerge out of conceiving a 'world class' public space, and projecting this abstraction onto an extremely hybrid social space in downtown Montreal. From some influential design, architectural, and art critics, the public space commonly known as Berri Square has received both local and international acclaim. But what actually happens in the space has defied expectations and largely been met with critical disdain. A resident base for punkers, skateboarders, and drug dealers as well as an everyday provisional soup kitchen for the homeless was clearly not what the city envisioned for this multi-million dollar public square. Thus, for several years the city has employed various tactics in an attempt to 'reclaim' the site. Through an empirical investigation into the design, development and use of Berri Square this thesis attempts to ground some of the dominant theories concerning the production of contemporary urban space, and contextualise some of the governing forces working to reshape urban space in the contemporary city. Based on the findings of the empirical research, it suggests that the conflicts between its various uses and values will continue to escalate until creative ways to manage them are articulated. An examination into some of the institutional and political constraints barring this articulation is the first step toward this process.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0210.015
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topicUrban Design and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207