MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334170956 · doi:10.1177/1741659016631609

Urban interventionism as a challenge to aesthetic order: Towards an aesthetic criminology

2016· article· en· W2334170956 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrime Media Culture An International Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Spaces through Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoInternational Council for Canadian Studies
KeywordsOrder (exchange)SociologyScope (computer science)Interventionism (politics)Face (sociological concept)Green criminologyRelevance (law)AestheticsCriminologyPoliticsSocial scienceLawPolitical scienceArtInternational relationsCriminal justice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is concerned with ideas of urban order and considers the scope for playing with people’s expectations of order. In particular, drawing on criminological, philosophical and urban studies literatures, the article explores the notion of aesthetic order. The power to dictate aesthetic order is highlighted. The example of urban interventionism is used to consider those that challenge an approved aesthetic order. Here the article draws on cultural criminology and visual criminology, with illustrations coming from research in Toronto, Canada. Influenced by Alison Young’s (2014a) conceptualisation of ‘cities within the city’, the article considers how different people using the same space have different or overlapping ways of understanding aesthetic order. Of relevance to criminology, it is contended that people or things that contravene an approved aesthetic order may face banishment and criminalisation. It is concluded that respect for such difference is required. An aesthetic criminology is suggested.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.313 · 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