Ottawa, an urban identity in need of definition: examining media's perceptions of the national capital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Depuis sa désignation comme capitale en 1857, Ottawa n'a cessé d'être l'objet de polémique, remettant en cause sa capacité à incarner le Canada. Cet article se propose d'analyser un débat médiatique récent sur l'image de la ville, initié par la publication dans le journal The Ottawa Citizen d'extraits du livre The Unfinished Canadian d'Andrew Cohen. Vingt‐quatre intervenants—journalistes, citoyens, politiciens et acteurs communautaires—ont pris position dans cet échange, dressant l'image d'une ville déchirée entre deux rôles : d'une part, être une capitale représentative des Canadiens et, d'autre part, être un lieu de vie agréable pour ses habitants. Une question cruciale sous‐tend cette tension permanente, question qui a influencé considérablement l'aménagement d'Ottawa et s'avèrera tout aussi fondamentale lors des choix de développements futurs de la ville : comment dépasser la contradiction flagrante entre l'image monumentale que les planificateurs tentent de projeter sur la capitale et celle que les citoyens se font réellement de leur ville ? Est‐il possible de réconcilier ces deux visions ?
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".