Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los Angeles and history are not terms that couple easily in the popular imaginary or, for that matter, in the imagination of scholars who study American society and culture. Rather, accounts of this city's past evoke and at times emulate turn-of-the-century booster promotions intended to draw émigrés to a land of prosperity and progress, a place where the future would arrive first; that future focus has held an undue grip on our analysis of greater Los Angeles. If we were to resurrect the pueblo and re-examine the first decades of city building following the American conquest we would discover a border zone, a site and locale where people, resources, and ideas originating across the globe came together and in coming together, Tongva, Spaniards, Mexicans, Californios, Yankees, and others created a hybrid or metis city and culture. Within this border city, Anglos asserted their political, economic, and social capital and in doing so orchestrated and regulated the use and meaning of urban space through agencies and institutions of the local state. Social segregation (by race-ethnicity, income, gender) and functional segregation (zoning activities and assigning these to discrete districts) are signature aspects of American cities and Angelenos used both in a process of place-making and identity formation that defined space in the city. That history matters because all manner of metrics underscore the fact that space matters; where you live, which school district or council district you call home, which hospital an ambulance takes you to, all those lines on the map define the odds you will graduate high school, attend a university, or whether you will survive a heart attack.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".