MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091371723 · doi:10.1002/psp.581

Gendering reurbanisation: women and new‐build gentrification in Toronto

2009· article· en· W2091371723 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leslie Kern

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation Space and Place · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommodificationGentrificationDowntownSociologyContext (archaeology)IdeologyGender studiesEveryday lifeMedia studiesEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomyPoliticsGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For over a decade beginning in the mid 1990s, Toronto, Canada experienced a massive wave of condominium development. Women make up a high percentage of condominium purchasers and condominiums are extensively marketed to young, professional urban women. In grappling with this phenomenon, this paper constructs a gendered social geography of reurbanisation and new‐build gentrification in Toronto, through qualitative research into women's experiences as downtown condominium owners. Examining both the gendered ideologies that have shaped Toronto's condominium boom, and the narratives of condominium developers and owners, this paper illustrates the gendered dimensions of city building and everyday life in the context of reurbanization. I argue that the neoliberal rationality of contemporary entreprenuerial city building is constituted, in part, by gender. Gender ideologies inform the processes of privatisation, commodification, and securitisation of urban space and urban life in the city's quest for a competitive position in the global urban hierarchy. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations71
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePopulation Space and PlaceSame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207