MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023502202 · doi:10.1080/0042098042000243138

Urban Space and Homosexuality: The Example of the Marais, Paris' 'Gay Ghetto'

2004· article· en· W2023502202 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Sibalis

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeighbourhood (mathematics)GentrificationSociologyEconomic rentHomosexualityPoliticsUrban sociologyQuarter (Canadian coin)Gender studiesPolitical scienceEconomic growthGeographySocial scienceLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

'Gay ghettos'—neighbourhoods dominated by homosexual men and women-have emerged during recent decades in many cities in North America and western Europe, including in Paris' historical Marais quarter. The gay Marais resulted from economic and social factors such as initially low rents and real-estate prices in a run-down neighbourhood ripe for gentrification, a central location with good public transport and the emergence of an urban gay community eager to establish a territorial base for its political militancy. In addition, gay businessmen consciously set out to establish commercial venues in the Marais that would embody a more openly gay lifestyle. The Marais and this lifestyle have become objects of bitter attack from both outside and within the gay community. Residents resent the intrusion into their neighbourhood, while others denounce the formation of a distinct gay identity as 'communitarianism' and a threat to French national values.

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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.387
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

Citations109
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban StudiesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207