MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007178943 · doi:10.3828/idpr.2010.01

Reclaiming Cairo's downtown district: Contesting the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century European Quarter

2010· article· en· W2007178943 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wael Fahmi, Keith Sutton

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Development Planning Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownQuarter (Canadian coin)TourismAdaptive reuseStakeholderLocal communityCultural heritageEconomic growthPolitical sciencePublic administrationEconomyGeographyPublic relationsArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the contested spatiality within Cairo's European Quarter in relation to various heritage inventories, official urban conservation approaches, real estate activities and local peoples' interests. It explores restoration and rehabilitation within Cairo's downtown which involved pedestrianisation of public spaces and architectural conservation and adaptive reuse of belle-époque buildings. Informal discussions and in-depth interviews were administered within the Stock Exchange Quarter with both primary stakeholders (local residents, shop owners, street vendors, urban youth) and secondary stakeholder agencies (local municipality, planners, entrepreneurs and a local NGO). Official rehabilitation has favoured more technical aspects of restoration of belle-époque buildings for future tourism, rather than enhancing the area's socio-cultural characteristics. The prohibition against community reuse of some buildings is a major barrier to rehabilitation. The paper advocates heritage management to safeguard Cairo's European Quarter which integrates everyday community activities with new commercial uses and tourism functions, so perpetuating the built environment heritage and involving grass-roots cooperation between local stakeholder groups.

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 score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Development Planning ReviewSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207