The Rhetoric and Reality of Urban Policy in the Neoliberal City: Implications for Social Struggle in Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the disparities between the ideological discourses and material outcomes of three key urban policies, contextually grounded within the neoliberalised social and institutional spaces of Over-the-Rhine, Cincinnati. Whilst the rhetoric of neoliberal doctrine presents an emancipatory urban imaginary based upon individual freedom and the beneficent role of free markets, the embedding of the policies discussed accentuates the political and economical disenfranchisement of the most marginalised neighbourhood inhabitants. Moreover, the ability of this group to politically mobilise against hostile neoliberalisation and gentrification is undermined by the facilitation of out-migration of stable low-income families and community leaders, and the reproduction of the negative, criminal, and blighted aspects of Over-the-Rhine's environment. Neoliberalisation is seen to operate through material and discursive moments of social exclusion and in perpetuating sociospatial structures which justify the continued implementation of repressive political and regulatory projects. In concluding, I suggest neoliberal hegemony may be undermined through exposing the ways in which it reproduces and exacerbates the phenomena it condemns.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".