MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161102143

Urban Co-Creation: Envisioning New Digital Tools for Activism and Experimentation in the City

2011· article· en· W2161102143 on OpenAlexaff
David Monteyne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsSociologyUrban planningCitizen journalismHackerBureaucracyGlobalizationPublic relationsUrban designPoliticsUrban studiesPolitical scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringLawComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With this paper we seek to shed more light on the use of digital tools in support of urban forms of civic participation. We outline a multi-faceted approach to urban issues and review different approaches to activism in the city. Based on this, we sketch out new opportunities for design and invention in support of a range of participatory practices in the city. While urban developments and planning processes may seem to be determined by abstract forces such as markets and bureaucracy, we argue that citizen activists can—and already do—get actively and concretely engaged in shaping their cities. We conceptualize these grassroots transformations of spatial, material, and social aspects of a city as urban co-creation involving—to borrow terms from computing culture—deciphering, debugging, and hacking the city. FROM COMPLEXITIES TO URBAN CO-CREATION The city has been for centuries an important locale of cultural creation, economic exchange, and political interaction. Mumford conceptualized the city as a “collection of primary groups and purposive associations” (p.93), and a ‘theater of social action’ with city inhabitants as its protagonists [14]. Today’s cities can be seen as strategic places for both the dominant forces of capitalist globalization, but also for ‘counter-geographies’ of local citizen networks using digital tools [18]. To better understand the complexity of cities as social and spatial phenomena, it can be helpful to draw from actor-network theory as a sociology of associations [12]. In urban actor networks, humans (e.g., citizens, planners, developers) and artifacts (e.g., streets, buildings, benches) interact with each other in complex, contingent ways. This means that neither physical characteristics nor social relations have ultimately determining influence on the other. Instead, humans and artifacts influence each other by being part of actor networks. Following actor-network theory, the concept of place can be framed as an entanglement of people and things associated by meanings and memories. For example, a particular actor network of a specific place like a park or community centre becomes itself an actor that is part of the neighbourhood and city. Phenomena often associated with place, such as memory and identity, resemble linkages between citizens and the locations they value.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207