MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071720111 · doi:10.7202/1025699ar

The Role of Emotions in Protests against Modernist Urban Redevelopment in Perth and Halifax

2014· article· en· W2071720111 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jenny Gregory, Jill L. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Emotions Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedevelopmentDowntownTown planningPlannerHistorySociologyUrban planningCriminologyPolitical scienceLawArchaeologyCivil engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 1950s and 1960s modernist town planning reordered countless cities through urban renewal and freeway-building projects. Applying rational planning expertise generated emotional responses that often lingered long after redevelopment occurred. This article considers the emotional response to urban renewal in two cities advised by the British town planner Gordon Stephenson. In Perth, Australia, Stephenson was amongst a group of experts who planned a freeway that obliterated part of the valued river environment and threatened a historic structure. In Halifax, Stephenson prepared the initial scientific study used to justify dismantling part of the downtown and a historic black community on the urban fringe. While the Perth case generated an explosion of emotional intensity that failed to prevent environmental despoliation but saved some heritage assets, the Halifax example initiated a lingering emotional dispute involving allegations of neglect and racism. Comparing cases resulting from the activities of a noted practitioner illustrates differing emotional trajectories produced in the wake of the modernist planning project.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicHistory of Emotions ResearchFrench-language works237,207