Pékin, ville spectacle: la construction controversée d’une métropole Olympique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In July 2001, the international Olympic Committee announced that Beijing had won its bid to host the 2008 summer Olympic Games. From that moment, the city began working on a major overhaul that would deeply transform both its social and physical landscapes, to construct and project a new image of China to the world. The Chinese government commissioned the world’s most renowned « starchitects » to build a series of iconic architectural projects that would reflects the leadership’s ambition to reclaim China’s position as a world leader. Beijing’s Olympic makeover recalls earlier cycles of intensive state-sponsored architectural production that periodically transformed its landscape throughout the 20th century in response to shifts in ideology, but one that departs radically from previous attempts to reinvent its image. Drawing upon technological prowess, incommensurable scale, and avant-garde design, these projects present a radically new world image of China and epitomize a new Chinese reality, where the monotonous equality of socialism has been replaced by the spectacular inequalities of capitalism. This paper examines the physical and rhetorical construction of this image through a study of Beijing’s pre-Olympic metamorphosis. It presents this last round of conspicuous construction as symptomatic of new changes taking place in Chinese society. By examining public debates surrounding this new phase of urban transformation, as well as global influences and grassroots resistance to this process, this paper suggests that this new image may be counterproductive as a long-term strategy of urban distinction because it annihilates the city’s competitive advantage by sacrificing its historical urban fabric, and disrupts the social landscape that had given Beijing its distinctive urban culture.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".