MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1957170627 · doi:10.7202/1031287ar

William Zeckendorf, Place Ville-Marie, and the Making of Modern Montreal

2015· article· en· W1957170627 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Don Nerbas

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedevelopmentModernization theoryCapital (architecture)EliteArchitectureBoulevardHistorySociologyEconomic historyArt historyLawPoliticsArchaeologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Place Ville-Marie development was central to the renovation of Montreal during the 1950s and 1960s. Its cruciform office tower transformed the city’s skyline and marked the removal of the city’s financial district from St. James Street to the new alley of skyscrapers on Dorchester Boulevard (now Boulevard René Lévesque). Earlier studies have emphasized the role of modern planning in the making of Place Ville-Marie and other post–Second World War urban redevelopment projects. This article advances an interpretation of Place Ville-Marie as a capital investment in the “production of space.” The project was a highly speculative effort by its developer, William Zeckendorf, to utilize monumental architecture to sell prestige to corporate tenants. This took place in specific, historically contingent, and politically contested circumstances. In a period when modernization was a powerful and popular idea, Zeckendorf cultivated a myth about Place Ville-Marie that accommodated and absorbed nationalist aspirations within Montreal and Canada that were fixed upon the panacea of modernization. While Zeckendorf’s financial woes and the overcapacity of office space that Place Ville-Marie helped create contradicted the project’s mythic image, Place Ville-Marie also embodied new capitalist values and the rise of new capitalist forces in the city.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207