Cultural production, place and politics on the South Bank of the Thames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past decade has seen an increasing interest in the cultural economies of cities by public bodies keen to address issues of urban decline. This article documents recent developments on the South Bank of the Thames in central London where cultural investments appear to be clustered and where attempts have been made to give spatial and policy coherence to a range of new development projects. The local authority promotes the South Bank as London’s new cultural quarter. However, this strategy is an opportunist and image‐based response to dominant property speculation interests. The management of cultural production in this part of London reveals limits to local coalition building and the limited influence of local strategies on the development process. The article questions whether the cultural quarter is an appropriate scale for managing the development of cultural industries as a motor for economic development in particular. Depuis une dizaine d’années, les autorités publiques qui s’occupent du déclin urbain s’intéressent de plus en plus à la dimension économique de la culture dans les villes. Cet article présente ce qui s’est passé sur la rive sud de la Tamise au centre de Londres où une tentative a été faite pour donner une cohérence spatiale à une série de nouveaux projets. L’autorité locale vend la South Bank comme un nouveau centre culturel. Cependant, cette stratégie constitue une réponse opportuniste en termes d’image aux intérêts immobiliers spéculatifs dominants. La gestion de la production culturelle dans ce quartier de Londres révèle les limites de la construction de la coalition locale et l’influence limitée des stratégies locales dans les processus de développement. Les auteurs de l’article se demandent si le quartier culturel est une échelle appropriée pour la gestion du développement des industries culturelles comme centre moteur du développement économique en particulier.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".