Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis un certain temps, le concept de « spectacle urbain » occupe une place centrale dans les études portant sur l’urbanisation postfordiste, mais ne fait pas l’objet d’un examen sérieux de leur part. En commençant préalablement par une courte revue de la théorie du spectacle de Guy Debord, cet article propose d’examiner comment le « spectacle urbain » a été utilisé pour analyser trois aspects émergents de la vie urbaine contemporaine : (1) la poursuite du redéveloppement spectaculaire, afin de projeter des images de vitalité urbaine au sein du marché international ; (2) la construction de nouveaux environnements spectaculaires pour une consommation « haut de gamme » et des loisirs ; et (3) ces épisodes de vie urbaine interrompus par la résistance spectaculaire. Enfin, la toute dernière section aborde la manière dont les chercheurs utilisent cette notion de « spectacle urbain » pour réduire l’ensemble de la critique politico-éthique à la ville spectaculaire, et conclut avec une proposition sur son usage futur.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".