Women's struggle for urban safety. the Canadian experience and itsapplicability to the Israeli context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the ways in which issues of women's safety in public space are integrated into planning practice and policy. It deals with two processes of struggle for urban safety, addressing the integration of ‘voices from the field’ into urban administration and planning, and questioning the possible adaptation of experiences of such integration, as developed in one socio‐culture system, into another. The article focuses on a number of Canadian cities, and assesses if their experience is applicable to cities in Israel. Thus it considers the transferability of knowledge and the potential of cross‐culture study, in relation to the production of professional knowledge. The first part of the article introduces the main issues to be explored in the article and considers these in the context of recent theoretical, professional and public debates, especially as related to gender and urban safety, and in relation to concepts of power, knowledge, meaning and identity. The second part presents the major findings of a research project related to local Canadian actions for urban safety and the urban policies adopted for its provision. The third part analyzes the applicability of the Canadian experience to the Israeli context and contains preliminary conclusions and recommendations as to the transferability of this experience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.055 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".