MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963877769 · doi:10.5153/sro.1099

The Gentrification of Consumption: A View from Manchester

2005· article· en· W1963877769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joanne Massey

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Research Online · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrbanization and City Planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedevelopmentGentrificationQuarter (Canadian coin)SociologyConsumption (sociology)UnderpinningState (computer science)HistoryEconomic growthPolitical scienceSocial scienceEconomicsArchaeologyLawEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article gives some insight into the processes underpinning the exclusion of small traders from of the redevelopment of Manchester after the IRA bombing in 1996. This is achieved by drawing upon interviews with former traders of the Corn Exchange. This is a small subsection of a broader set of qualitative data which was gathered (between 2001 and 2002) from past and present everyday users of the Millennium Quarter. I claim that through regeneration the Millennium Quarter has experienced intense gentrification in which it has been reconfigured as an exclusive site of consumption (Smith 1996, Zukin 1995) which caters for the needs of the affluent. This gentrification is not only influenced by the middle classes who it is designed to attract but by private developers (Hackworth 2002) and often state intervention (Hackworth and Smith 2001). I draw on literature reflecting the experience of American cities (Betancur 2002, Hackworth 2002, Hackworth and Smith 2001, Zukin 1995) and more recent work about the rebuilding of Manchester (Holden 2002, Mellor 2002, Williams 2000). Whilst a significant body of literature exists regarding British cities (Atkinson 2000, Butler and Robson 2001, Hamnett and Randolph 1984, Robson and Butler 2001, Rosenburg and Watkins 1999) much of this concentrates on housing and residential areas. This paper is about the Millennium Quarter which is primarily a retail site in the central urban core and it adds to a growing literature regarding city centre redevelopment (e.g.; Chatterton and Hollands (2003); Low (2000) Van der Land (this collection).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.402
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.118 · 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

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociological Research OnlineSame topicUrbanization and City PlanningFrench-language works237,207