Making meaning of heritage landscapes: The politics of redevelopment in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the production and maintenance of the heritage landscape in downtown Halifax, Nova Scotia. It argues that the unequal power relations that produced and were inscribed in the landscape historically continue to operate in the present. It does so by critically evaluating and contextualizing contestation over new high‐rise construction on the streets below Citadel Hill. Drawing on qualitative field work between 2005 and 2008, the article suggests that the meanings and values of heritage resources, such as views that served to protect the city, are not properly understood. A spatialized historical account shows how the creation of the colonial city depended upon the marginalization of groups that were other to the British settlers. A review of the establishment of the modern planning apparatus reveals a model of heritage interpretation that encourages an adversarial approach to the evaluation of proposals for new development. The characteristics and aspirations of pro‐development and pro‐heritage groups are examined. Finally, a case study of a controversial proposal to build a high‐rise building in a prominent location is presented. The article contributes to critical landscape studies by using a postcolonial approach to study the ideological underpinnings of built heritage in the Canadian context.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".