MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127707885 · doi:10.7202/1025697ar

The Everyday Usage of City-Centre Streets: Urban Behaviour in Provincial Britain ca. 1930–1970

2014· article· en· W2127707885 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lucy Faire, Denise McHugh

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCity centreSpace (punctuation)Function (biology)PerceptionUrban spaceSociologyInvestment (military)High StreetAdvertisingMedia studiesVisual artsGeographyRegional scienceBusinessPolitical sciencePsychologyCivil engineeringEngineeringArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the user experience in the city-centre street space, focusing on three main themes: space usage; the behaviour of users and interventions to direct behaviour by urban authorities; and the sensory and emotional experiences of being on the street. The emphasis is on people’s interaction with the city centre and their perceptions of it. These interactions generated multi-dimensional perspectives linked to individual socio-demographic characteristics producing place-specific experiences. The article uses film, photography and testimony to provide insights into street usage and, while acknowledging that the retail function of the city centre was fundamental, argues that this space generated wider experiences beyond the acquisition of goods and services in commercial transactions. The article concludes that the user experience, behaviour and relationship with the city-centre street are as important to understanding urban function as capital investment and city planning.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207