MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141835974

Homelessness in the Livable City: Public Space Regulation in Olympic City, Vancouver's Poorest Neighborhood

2012· article· en· W2141835974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alix Freiler, Meg Holden

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownPublic spaceGovernment (linguistics)Space (punctuation)Public policyGlobal cityPower (physics)Political scienceEconomic growthPublic administrationGeographyLawEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines whether public space regulation changed around Vancouver’s preparations to host the 2010 Winter Olympics, particularly in the poor neighborhood of the Downtown Eastside. We argue that Vancouver’s desire to be competitive on the international stage has major effects on how public space is used and regulated. Any policy shift would have a disproportionate impact on the homeless, given that this demographic group is compelled to live their lives in public space. We find that changes have occurred, but the Olympics have acted as catalyst for such changes, not the sole driver. The spotlight provided by the Olympic Games has amplified a new round of power struggle between city government and the police department to set the policy agenda for tackling concentrated social problems. The outcome of this conflict will determine the future of public space regulation in post-Olympic Vancouver, and the extent to which a poor neighborhood and those who call it home can be included in a world class, livable city.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207