The Re-Branding Project: The Genealogy of Creating a Neoliberal Jane and Finch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines the stigmas that have been given to the Jane and Finch area in Toronto, Ontario and the effects of re-branding the neighbourhood as “University Heights”. The re-branding initiative started in 2006 and has rapidly changed the face of the Jane and Finch community with the development of new housing complexes and a subway expansion. Using a genealogical approach I trace the steps that were taken to develop “University Heights” to determine if a democratic process was used throughout the decision-making phases. I outline the key social, political and economic stakeholders that played a role in the re-branding project. In the context of neoliberal praxis, I use the public statements made by the stakeholders to unpack what the re-branding initiative entails and highlight whose interests it is likely to serve. This research calls attention to the ways in which residents of the Jane and Finch area will be affected by the gentrification of their neighbourhood. A critical race framework is used to uncover the neoliberal ideologies that have been fundamental to the creation of “University Heights”. The crux of my project is to highlight the social injustices along the axis of race, class and gender, that are embedded in applying a neoliberal agenda in the Jane and Finch area.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".