MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recreative City: Amsterdam, Vehicular Ideas and the Adaptive Spaces of Creativity Policy

2011· article· en· W1526814933 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityPoliticsHumanitiesSociologyPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.177 · 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