Revisiting the Diversity of Gentrification: Neighbourhood Renewal Processes in Brussels and Montreal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a comparative analysis of neighbourhood renewal processes in Brussels and Montreal based on a typology of such processes wherein gentrification is precisely delimited. In this way, it seeks to break with the extensive use of a chaotic conception of gentrification referring to the classic stage model when dealing with the geographical diversity of neighbourhood renewal, within or between cities. In both Brussels and Montreal, the gentrification concept only adequatly describes the upward movement of very restricted parts of the inner city, while neighbourhood renewal in general more typically comprises marginal gentrification, upgrading and incumbent upgrading. Evidence drawn from the case studies suggests that each of these processes is relevant on its own-i.e. linked to a particular set of causal factors-rather than composing basically transitional states within a step-by-step progression towards a common gentrified fate. Empirical results achieved in Brussels and Montreal suggest that a typology such as the one implemented in this article could be used further in wider research aimed at building a geography of neighbourhood renewal throughout Western cities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it