MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1924149379 · doi:10.1111/ciso.12015

The New Normal: The Figure of the Condo Owner in<scp>T</scp>oronto's<scp>R</scp>egent<scp>P</scp>ark

2013· article· en· W1924149379 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharon Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueCity & Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentrificationRedevelopmentGovernment (linguistics)SubsidyAdvertisingPosition (finance)BusinessEconomyEconomicsPolitical scienceLawEconomic growthFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, I explore the newly emergent figure of the condo owner inToronto'sRegentPark,Canada's first and largest government housing project, which is being razed and rebuilt in a $1 billion redevelopment. The revitalized neighborhood will contain a mix of subsidized and condominium housing, and commercial development. Against this backdrop of massive change, the figure of the condo owner is perceived both as a salve and a threat. The redevelopment is premised upon the need to “normalize”RegentPark through the creation of a mixed‐income neighborhood, and the figure of the condo owner is deployed as a paragon of this “new normal.” However, the presence of the condo owner also evokes fears of privatization and a diminished voice for low‐income residents. Drawing on fieldwork conducted withinRegentPark, I examine how the figure of the condo owner is constituted in service to the redemption of a devalorized neighborhood, and how the condo owners negotiate this subject position. [urban revitalization, social mix, poverty, gentrification, Toronto].

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.043
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations41
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCity & SocietySame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207