MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124842280 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2005v30n2a1417

Toronto’s Cultural Renaissance

2005· article· en· W2124842280 on OpenAlex
Barbara Jenkins

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe RenaissanceBoomCultural policyContext (archaeology)ReputationCultural tourismTourismCultural capitalPolitical scienceNationalismCompetition (biology)Cultural nationalismCultural identityEconomySociologyPolitical economySocial scienceHistoryTourism geographyEngineeringLawEconomicsArchaeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toronto is experiencing a building boom, with eight major cultural construction projects in the works. These new monuments, part of what the City of Toronto calls its “Cultural Renaissance,” are intended to bolster the city’s reputation as an international economic and cultural capital. Albeit architecturally important, these buildings are better understood in the context of contemporary patterns of global economic competition and the changing role of culture in capitalist production. They also assert national identity and reflect a reorientation of Canadian cultural policy. This paper analyzes Toronto’s “Cultural Renaissance” in light of changing cultural policies at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels, examining the role these new buildings will play in terms of promoting cultural tourism, city “branding,” and nationalism.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.258 · 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