Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionDoes Montreal represent a new school in studies in North America, after Chicago, Los Angeles and Miami? If so, is Montreal an ideal laboratory which is itself an integral component of the production of new modes of analysis of the (Cenzatti 1993:8)? The Montreal label was first proposed by French geographer Jean-Pierre Augustin of the Universite de Bordeaux, who had closely followed the work of studies scholars in Montreal over three decades, in response to the multiplication of urban in the United States (Augustin 2010). Setting aside any questions of academic fashion, Augustin is convinced that a new reading of the city is taking shape in Montreal, centred on the social study of public places as social space. In this paper I argue that we can indeed talk about a Montreal if we accept a soft version of the school concept. I will show that a particular kind of knowledge has been developed as a reflection of Montreal itself, a city of inbetweens. Its social contours fall somewhere between segmentation and liveable social mix, and it is shaped by a double legacy, European and American, meaning that it has a centralized welfare state but loose policies and a vibrant civil society. I will also underline the fact that the Montreal is the product of continuous discussion between social researchers and practitioners (policymakers as well as grass-roots organizations' workers), who have been engaged in dialogue about the promise and perils of social mix and inter-ethnic cohabitation. This reflexivity has inspired pragmatic expertise and policy-making and has produced a distinctive sociological approach to the city that emphasizes social and ethnic differences, neighbourhoods, and public spaces.To illustrate this approach, I shall discuss some research projects that have mobilized research teams and policy-makers in Montreal with regard to inter-ethnic cohabitation in neighbourhoods, inter-ethnic cohabitation in social housing, and planned social mix in residential projects. Revisiting these projects allows me to retrospectively sketch out the research agenda they all share, which could be labelled as a school. But before discussing this research, I briefly review the recent debates on schools in studies.The Montreal School: A or a Conversation?The School Debate started in the late 1980s with claims made by artists, architects and scholars at the University of California, such as Edward Soja, Michael Dear and Stephen Flusty regarding new ways to think about the city. These scholars sought to distance themselves from the framework put forth by the so-called Chicago during the 1920s-1940s, since Chicago could no longer be seen as the quintessential capitalist metropolis. The Los Angeles held that development was now taking place in peripheral areas, in ways that were postmodern or even chaotic (in terms of spatial disorder), as well as culturally hybrid. As a result, the old schema of ecology - in which, for instance, a city grew outwards in concentric rings from centre to periphery - was no longer useful for studying the fragmentations imposed on the city by post-industrial capitalism (Dear 2002).Yet, according to Jan Nijman, a Dutch scholar working at the University of Miami, even Los Angeles itself was no longer the paradigmatic city at the beginning of the 21st century. How could Los Angeles be an extreme example of the new trends in development associated with contemporary capitalism when it was still, after all. a late-industrial city (Nijman 2000)? Instead, he argues, Miami is clearly more convincing as an exemplary global and postindustrial city. Produced by new transportation and communication technologies, Miami is a major hub for transnational communities anchored in ethnic enclaves, and is dominated by flexible immigration, excessive materialism, and a high crime rate. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".