MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284813160 · doi:10.14288/1.0099407

From "contested space" to "shared place" : options for public realm enhancement in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside

2009· article· en· W2284813160 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Anne Franks

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative and Sustainable Housing Initiatives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntownRealmPublic spaceSpace (punctuation)Political scienceSociologyMedia studiesPublic administrationGeographyEngineeringLawArchitectural engineeringComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of this thesis is to examine the opportunities and constraints for transforming "contested" public space into "shared" place in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. This examination is informed by: a literature review of public space theory; a review of City of Vancouver policies pertaining to public space conditions in the Downtown Eastside; a case study of community-driven public realm initiatives in Pioneer Square in Seattle, Washington; personal experience both working in, and observing conditions in the Downtown Eastside, and a review of current initiatives in the area that are working towards improving the public realm in the area while building consensus between opposing community groups. This research indicates that public spaces play an important role in the everyday lives of city dwellers, particularly for those who, due to homelessness and poverty, rely on public space for recreation and socialization, and in many cases, to live. However, as the central city is becoming an increasingly attractive place to live for middle and upper income households, conflicts can ensue over who has the "right" to use the public realm. What often occurs is the exclusion of the poor and marginalized segment of the population to "make way" for amenities that serve higher income residents and visitors. Conditions in the Downtown Eastside have deteriorated, yet at the same time, development both within and around the area has created distrust and hostility between different community groups. However, recent initiatives are working to make improvements while building trust between different, often hostile community groups. Ideally, planning for the public realm should have a significant amount of community involvement and control. The case study of Pioneer Square indicates that this is possible, although a sufficient amount of trust and consensus is needed from the outset. While the Downtown Eastside possesses many attributes which provide opportunities for public realm improvements, planners from outside the community should play a significant role in any initiatives, due to the lack of consensus and tension between community interests.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicCollaborative and Sustainable Housing InitiativesFrench-language works237,207