MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004864189 · doi:10.1177/1078087405280859

Ethnic Packaging and Gentrification

2005· article· en· W2004864189 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jason Hackworth, Josephine V. Rekers

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Affairs Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentrificationEthnic groupBazaarReal estateResidential real estateUrban theoryEconomic geographySociologyMegacityGeographyEconomyBusinessEconomic growthEconomicsCivil engineeringArchaeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban theory has historically situated ethnic commercial strips as an organic extension of nearby ethnic residential enclaving. While this is still a useful way to frame such commercial spaces in many cities, this article argues that some areas of this sort function as a marketable branding mechanism (intended or not) to produce nearby residential gentrification. This article explores the influence of ethnic packaging on the process of gentrification in Toronto, Ontario. Using four ethnically defined business-improvement areas—Corso Italia, Little Italy, India Bazaar, and Greektown on the Danforth—it explores the role that constructed ethnicity plays in the valorization of local real estate markets. The commercial areas of these neighborhoods now function increasingly as ways to market each neighborhood’s residential real estate markets. This has specific implications for gentrification theory and more general ones for the study of urban landscapes.

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)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations186
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban Affairs ReviewSame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207