MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reproducing Difference: Gated Communities in Canada and Israel

2010· article· en· W1753318808 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gillad Rosen, Jill L. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenonEthnologyHuman settlementSociologyHumanitiesGeographyArchaeologyArtPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historical and cultural studies of residential enclaves reveal the range of patterns within a phenomenon that some have treated essentially as the result of contemporary neoliberal conditions. Gated and enclosed communities are by no means new, nor are they the product of universal principles or circumstances. Among other things, they reflect historical conditions, contemporary concerns, cultural ambitions and inter-group dynamics. Based largely on comparisons of national inventories of gated communities in Israel and Canada, this article explores some of the articulations and functions of enclosure. It illuminates the contrasts within a set of historic and contemporary enclosed and segregated settlements, and seeks to develop a framework to account for the range of patterns found and some of the motivations behind them. While many enclaves in Israel feature extensive security measures that include armed guards, Canadian gated communities typically use weak devices such as low fences. The patterns employed to mark difference reinforce divergent social conditions and generate varying spatial consequences. The comparison reveals variations in who produces enclosure, how, and for what purposes. Résumé Les études historiques et culturelles relatives aux enclaves résidentielles révèlent les divers schémas d’un phénomène que certains voient principalement comme le produit des conditions néolibérales contemporaines. Les communautés fermées sécurisées n’ont rien de nouveau et ne résultent pas non plus de circonstances ou de principes universels. Elles sont le reflet, entre autres, de situations historiques, de préoccupations contemporaines, d’ambitions culturelles et de dynamiques entre groupes. En s’appuyant sur les comparaisons de communautés sécurisées inventoriées en Israël et au Canada, l’article explore certaines des articulations et fonctions de la création d’enclave. Mettant en évidence les distinctions au sein d’un ensemble d’implantations fermées et isolées plus ou moins anciennes, il tente d’élaborer un cadre permettant d’expliquer l’éventail des schémas observés et certaines de leurs motivations sous-jacentes. Si de nombreuses enclaves israéliennes affichent des mesures de sécurité poussées, dont des gardes en armes, les communautés sécurisées canadiennes appliquent généralement des dispositifs légers tels que des clôtures peu élevées. Les schémas utilisés pour marquer une différence renforcent les conditions sociales distinctes, tout en ayant des incidences spatiales variées. La comparaison fait apparaître des variations sur les points suivants: qui génère l’enclave, comment et à quelles fins.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchSame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207