MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567131526 · doi:10.4000/erea.5389

“Resilient City”? The Double Face of the 2006 Mardi Gras Celebrations in New Orleans

2016· article· en· W2567131526 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueE-rea · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsSNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeFace (sociological concept)Hurricane katrinaHistoryPsychological resilienceTourismSociologyResilience (materials science)Media studiesPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsGeographyNatural disasterSocial scienceArchaeologyArtPsychologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six months after Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, the residents of New Orleans decided to follow the tradition and organize a scaled-down Mardi Gras despite the perception that the city was still inundated with water. This article first analyses the 2006 carnival parades as the expression of a desire for “normality” as well as an attempt to memorialize Katrina. It then moves on to a discussion of the extent to which such a narrative of resilience was in fact devised and promoted by city officials and public editors in order to address various concerns, such as the decline of the tourism industry, divisions over the way reconstruction should happen, or the unflattering portrayal of the Crescent City in national and international venues. Finally, it examines how the combination of conservatism and transgression that characterized Mardi Gras discourse in 2006 echoes past debates on the propriety of carnival, making post-Katrina celebrations less an exception to the rule than an illustration of the double face of New Orleans Mardi Gras and of the city itself.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.268 · 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