Framing neoliberal urbanism: Translating ‘commonsense’ urban policy across the OECD zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper explores the evolution of urban policy discourses among advanced industrial nations in the period since the early 1980s, by way of a case study of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). The OECD, it is argued, has provided an arena for the consolidation of a particular form of neoliberal urbanism, conceived here as a mutating policy frame. As a consensus-finding organization, the OECD is more of a mediator than a unilateral driver of policy conventions. It is not a site of hard-edged or radical policy innovation, but seeks to define a ‘common ground’ in the form of a positive policy consensus. As such, the OECD’s coordinative discourse both reflects and refracts a particular reading of the ‘soft center’ of the urban policy consensus, revealing how (far) this has moved since the early 1980s. Hardly preordained, this transnational mode of neoliberal urbanism has been a constructed project, subject to significant adaption and evolution.
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 | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".