MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155383767 · doi:10.1080/0042098042000256314

'Best Places': Interurban Competition, Quality of Life and Popular Media Discourse

2004· article· en· W2155383767 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterurbanNormativePoliticsArgument (complex analysis)Competition (biology)SociologyPower (physics)Political economyQuality (philosophy)Political scienceLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores relationships between the politics of urban competitiveness and popular media discourse about the 'good life' and 'good places'. Specifically, it focuses on the influence of popular 'best places to live' rankings on urban policy in three US cities. It addresses two issues: how and why similar policies are transferred from place to place; and, how 'extra-economic' factors are mobilised in formulating local economic development policy. It argues that the media's role in these processes is understudied and that its normative discourse is powerful and political. This argument is influenced by and illustrative of a recent attempt to locate the study of discursive power much more centrally in political economy approaches to urban studies.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.293 · 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