Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban politics has changed during a generation of neoliberalization. This paper argues that next to the notions of roll‐back and roll‐out neoliberalization, which have been put forward to explain this change, a third concept might be helpful: roll‐with‐it neoliberalization. The three concepts refer to phases, moments and contradictions in neoliberalization. Roll‐with‐it neoliberalization captures the normalization of governmentalities associated with the neoliberal social formation and its emerging crises. The paper outlines an immanent critique of roll‐with‐it neoliberalization to determine possible consequences for urban politics in this current phase: (a) neoliberal governmentality has been generalized to the point that it does not have to be established aggressively and explicitly and (b) the far‐reaching crises of regulation that have gripped the capitalist urban system as a result of neoliberal roll‐out now demand new orientations in collective action that involve both ‘reformed’ neoliberal elite practices and elite reaction to widespread contestation of neoliberal regulation. The paper differentiates two ideal types of urban political discourses at the current conjuncture and adds a progressive alternative that points beyond the neoliberal agenda. While the previous era created governance conflicts around social cohesion and economic competitiveness, the current debate moves to new sectors of social concern, which broaden the agenda of urban politics to encompass fields traditionally not included in considerations on urban political regulation. The paper concludes that while roll‐with‐it neoliberalization has changed the game and moved the boundaries of urban politics, it has also created new contradictions that demonstrate its own unsustainability as a mode of regulation. As the financial and economic architecture of global neoliberalism fails, and communities world wide are thrown into the maelstrom of crisis, urban politics and the actors that make it need to be reimagined.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".