Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many contemporary neo‐liberal urban programs are enacted in order to protect private property, structured according to a logic of property, or designed to extend the workings of private property to public domains. My focus is on the latter, especially in relation to the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Here, residents are encouraged to act in a proprietary way toward public space in order to expel anti‐social forms of behaviour. Drawing on Oscar Newman's analysis of “defensible space”, I document the link between CPTED and certain characterizations of property—that property is largely synonymous with private property, that it is communicated to others through clear acts, such as gardening, and that it is, or should be certain and clear. These principles, I note, echo hegemonic accounts of property. Perhaps for this reason, defensible space principles remain important to neo‐liberal urban governance. I document their significance in relation to attempts to create a “Community Greenway” in inner city Vancouver. Drawing from interviews, I demonstrate that while residents did, indeed, lay claim to public space, they did so in complicated and collectivized ways that depart from the privatized certainties of neo‐liberal notions of property. Such complications are also echoed in other accounts of defensible space. I conclude by urging geographers to take property more seriously, yet also acknowledge the overlapping and collectivized ways in which people can lay claim to urban space.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".