MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162342525 · doi:10.1177/1469540513488404

Urban brands, culture and social division: Creativity, tension and differentiation among middle class consumers

2013· article· en· W2162342525 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sonia Bookman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Culture · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativitySociologyCreative classMiddle classConsumption (sociology)Urban sociologyUrban cultureCreative citySocial scienceSocial psychologyLawPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers the relationship between urban brands, consumption and socio-spatial division in the city, drawing on recent theoretical developments in the sociology of brands and empirical material from a study of the Exchange District in the city of Winnipeg, Canada. Focusing on the theme of creativity, the article uses interview data to examine how middle class residents, workers and visitors engage with the creative possibilities and cultural consumption the Exchange District brand offers. At stake in this process is not only the surfacing of a particular kind of creative culture and neighborhood, but also the performance and positioning of middle class identities. In this process, creativity is elaborated in contradictory and often unintended ways. Parallel to existing work on authenticity and class, the article argues that different notions and practices of creativity are bound up with tensions between moral and cultural boundaries, constituting horizontal divisions between the middle classes who inhabit this 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer CultureSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207