MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092489804 · doi:10.1080/02723638.2013.867669

Commodifying poverty: gentrification and consumption in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside

2013· article· en· W2092489804 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine Burnett

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Geography · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentrificationDowntownConsumption (sociology)PovertyTourismPromotion (chess)Marketing buzzNewspaperAdvertisingCommodificationSociologyEconomic growthGeographyPolitical scienceMedia studiesEconomyBusinessEconomicsArchaeologySocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, British Columbia, remains one of the poorest neighborhoods in Canada, yet is also a site of rapid gentrification. Both new and revitalized restaurants have created new spaces of consumption, transforming the neighborhood into a dining destination. Site visits and an analysis of the discourses used in newspaper articles and magazine features, as well as on blogs and in other online spaces, indicate that the presence of poor and marginalized residents of the Downtown Eastside is one of the reasons for some consumers’ decisions to visit new upscale establishments in the area. Analysis of advertisements and other primary documents indicates that the presence of poor and marginalized residents has become a competitive niche for the promotion of distinctive and authentic culinary adventures. This trend toward poverty tourism signals a shift from the simple displacement of low-income residents to a more complex form of gentrification in which residents face spatial management and control while their poverty is commodified.

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)0.000
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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations110
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban GeographySame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207