Gated communities, neighbourhood selection and segregation: the residential preferences and demographics of gated community residents in Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last quarter century has seen the rapid rise of walled or gated communities in a number of cities across the globe, including in Canada. Many claims have been made about those who move into gated communities. It has been said that the rise of gated living leads to segregation, driven by fear of crime or a desire for ‘civic secession’ as wealthy and/or white communities seek to separate themselves from different others. Alternatively, some scholars argue that such forms of community arise mainly from preferences for shared amenities and specialised facilities or from an emphasis placed on the protection of property values and thus do not imply a process of social segregation. Such arguments have different implications for how gated communities might affect the planning of the city. However, it is unclear whether gated community residents differ socio-demographically from other urban residents in Canada, and the preferences driving residential location decisions remain unknown. This article sheds light on such issues, through a survey of respondents living in three Canadian metropolitan regions (Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto), approximately one-quarter of which reside within twenty different gated communities. The results show that there are few socio-demographic differences between gated and non-gated community suburban residents and that gated communities are not at present vehicles of class or racial segregation in Canada's cities. However, gated community residents do report statistically different preferences that lead them to move into such communities. The implications of this research are discussed in relation to these preferences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it