MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069940703 · doi:10.1177/0042098009349775

Urban Renaissance as Intensification: Building Regulation and the Rescaling of Place Governance in Tokyo’s High-rise Manshon Boom

2009· article· en· W2069940703 on OpenAlexaff
André Sørensen, Junichiro Okata, Sayaka Fujii

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringBoomDecentralizationCorporate governanceCapitalismPolitical economyDevelopmental stateGovernment (linguistics)Economic systemCentral governmentCentralityDistribution (mathematics)Economic geographyEconomyPolitical scienceEconomicsMarket economyLocal governmentPublic administrationPoliticsLawManagementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past decade, Tokyo has seen a massive building boom, despite a prolonged economic slump since 1990. Since the 1980s, central government has enacted a steady stream of building code changes that allow much larger buildings. This paper argues that the recent wave of private investment in high-rise intensification has been instigated by these changes to building regulations, so that the form of urban restructuring and the distribution of winners and losers in the process are shaped by the central state, a reverse of the previous trend of decentralisation of planning powers. This restructuring of central/ local government relations can be understood as a creative rescaling of governance power that disrupted established democratic institutional frameworks of decision-making and conflict resolution. This study highlights both the centrality of land assets in Japan’s developmental capitalism and the continuing importance of the distinctive institutional legacies of the developmental state in structuring Japanese urban governance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations72
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban StudiesSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207