MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preserving Canadian Music Culture: The Case of the Silver Dollar Room and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Management of Urban Spaces of Culture

2016· article· en· W2524901495 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sara Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueArchitecture_MPS · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsWomen's and Gender Studies et Recherches Féministes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedevelopmentLiberian dollarCultural heritage managementCultural heritageScrutinyIntangible cultural heritageSpace (punctuation)Value (mathematics)Industrial heritageSociologyMedia studiesPolitical scienceAestheticsHistoryVisual artsBusinessLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On January 13, 2015, one of Toronto, Canada’s, iconic live music venues, the Silver Dollar Room, officially received cultural heritage designation pursuant to the City of Toronto By-law 57-2015 under Part IV, Section 29 of theOntario Heritage Act(“OHA”). What is significant about this designation, is that it was awarded, not on the basis of its physical or tangible heritage attributes but, instead, on the intangible cultural heritage value embodied within the space. Receiving cultural heritage designation is important for the future of the Silver Dollar Room as it has effectively led to the end of plans for its demolition and redevelopment that have been on the table since June 2013. By subjecting the redevelopment approval process to the greater scrutiny required due to cultural heritage designation, the interests of private developers have been better balanced with the artistic and cultural value of the Silver Dollar Room and the associated interests of the live music community culture linked to the space. This paper will examine these issues through the specific example of Toronto, but the implications of this study are applicable to the many rapidly developing cities around the world.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0490.019
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchitecture_MPSSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207