The Myth of the North American City Revisited: A Comparative Conceptual and Empirical Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In The Myth of the North American City: Continentalism Challenged, Michael A. Goldberg and John Mercer articulate a largely “cultural deterministic” theory of urban development. Cities are shaped, they say, by their society’s cultural framework and “national character.” Given that American and Canadian cultures differ, their cities’ physical forms and governance differ too. Hence, there is no North American city. Using data from opinion surveys conducted in 2010 in Canada and the United States, among other data, we critique the North American City concept and test attitudinal hypotheses consistent with Goldberg and Mercer’s expectations. We concur that the concept of the North American city has little utility but also find little empirical support for most of the authors’ theses. All empirical attitudinal relationships, moreover, are mitigated significantly by factors of language in Canada and race in the United States.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".