Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earlier studies of Canadian inner‐city gentrification, especially in Toronto, project an image of the process as being emancipatory: a middle‐class reaction to the oppressive conformity of suburbia, modernist planning and market principles. This paper, a case study of gentrification in South Parkdale, Toronto, questions this image by illustrating the role of local context in theory and policy and the consequences of gentrification for vulnerable inner‐city populations. Once a desirable residential neighbourhood, South Parkdale experienced disinvestment following the construction of the Gardiner Expressway in the 1960s and also experienced further problems in the 1970s and 1980s following the deinstitution‐alisation of psychiatric patients from adjacent hospitals. Discharged patients suffered from a shortage of affordable housing options, and many ended up in substandard rooming houses and bachelorettes, of which South Parkdale has a disproportionate share in Toronto. The neighbourhood's sporadic gentrification since the mid‐1980s has intensified in recent years, as the City of Toronto is regularising and licensing the neighbourhood's low‐income housing—a major concern for tenants who fear that landlords will use recent provincial legislation on tenancy to attract wealthier residents into their improved buildings. This paper examines this situation with qualitative evidence and argues that gentrification in South Parkdale, driven and managed by neoliberal policy, is far from an emancipatory process and argues for an interpretation of gentrification that looks beyond the experiences of the middle classes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".