Integrative multiplicity through suburban realities: exploring diversity through public spaces in Scarborough
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questions of “integration” are normatively assumed to promote particular ideals of the multicultural city and lead to a “settlement” culture that bodes well with the hegemonic majority. This paper, however, questions the concept from an alternative perspective – that is, it aims to explore how “integration” is imagined and understood by displaced migrants through the contextual specificities of multiple and peripheral “public spaces” – defined in this paper as the everyday practices of integrative multiplicity. Exploring these questions in Scarborough, a post-war primarily ethno-racialized suburb of Toronto, the unique experiences of migrants, many who have faced histories of trauma and violence suggest that the settlement experience is not devoid of anxiety and pain. Memories of places and communities left behind, sometimes never to be returned to, harness a longing and deeper need for home-making often spilling into the public realm. Understanding public space and its inherent conceptual and political complexity as defined, used, and valued by recent migrants, allows integration to be understood through the dynamics of power relations. The findings reveal how recent migrants not only understand and use the city but also how they reflect upon and envision the city-building process, through their own individual subjectivities of inclusion/place-making and exclusion/displacement. Through such complex spaces of encounter, civic engagement and grounded experiences, the participants frame Scarborough in multiple and metaphorical forms: from a City of Refuge and Peace; City of Memory, Desire, and Imagination; City of Multifariousness; to a City of Civic Engagement and Fluid Resistance. This stands in stark contrast from how the city is framed in dominant discourse and the unsettling debates on how to reform it.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".