Recreative City: Amsterdam, Vehicular Ideas and the Adaptive Spaces of Creativity Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The article presents a critical analysis of the reception and ramifications of creativity policies in the city of Amsterdam. The point is not to revisit critiques of creative cities policies per se , but rather to trace their consequences for the politics of urban governance — in one of their more receptive, if not ‘natural’, settings. The article explores how creativity policies actually work (and for whom) from the vantage point of one of Europe's most celebrated ‘creative cities’. It seeks to explain the persistence of the creativity syndrome — and the longevity, ubiquity and adaptability of the associated policy package — in the face of both social‐scientific skepticism and mediocre ‘performance’. Finally, it raises the question of how, and with what effects, creativity policies travel between cities; how they mutate in interurban space. Résumé Cette analyse critique s'intéresse à la réception et aux ramifications des politiques publiques axées sur la créativitéà Amsterdam. Il ne s'agit pas de réexaminer les critiques sur les politiques des villes créatives en elles‐mêmes, mais de repérer leurs conséquences sur les politiques de gouvernance urbaine, dans l'un de leurs cadres le plus réceptif, pour ne pas dire ‘naturel’. Le but est d'étudier comment (et pour qui) les politiques liées à la créativité fonctionnent réellement, vu de l'une des ‘villes créatives’ les plus renommées d'Europe. Il convient d'expliquer la persistance du syndrome de créativité— ainsi que la longévité, l'ubiquité et l'adaptabilité du train de mesures politiques associées — malgré le scepticisme des sciences sociales et un niveau de ‘performances’ médiocre. Est ensuite amené un questionnement sur la manière dont les politiques propres à la créativité sont transposées d'une ville à l'autre, sur les effets de cette transposition, et donc sur les mutations qu'elles subissent dans l'espace interurbain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".