MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614023629 · doi:10.21810/strm.v7i2.128

Urban Prophets: Creating Graffiti as a Means of Negotiating the Constructs of Urban Public Spaces

2016· article· en· W2614023629 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueStream Interdisciplinary Journal of Communication · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Spaces through Art
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraffitiPublic spaceIdeologySociologyAestheticsRight to the cityVisual artsPublic administrationPolitical scienceLawArtPoliticsEngineeringArchitectural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For this examination, graffiti and neo-graffiti have been compared to public art in order to reveal the ideological constructions of urban public spaces. How does graffiti interact with the construction of urban public spaces? How is graffiti similar to and different from public art? Which of these art forms better represents the public and city living? By comparing public art to (neo)graffiti in Toronto, Ontario and Los Angeles, California, the gendered, racialized, and class-based exclusions present in R. Florida's (2002) creative cities framework as theorized by authors such as N. Smith (1996), Sharon Zukin (1996), and G. Standing (2011) can be revealed. Urban public spaces are carefully shaped by those in control, the government and corporations, with the intention of creating spaces and citizens within those spaces that can be a functioning part of their neoliberal capitalist system. Graffiti and neo-graffiti act as a visual interruption to this system, which in turn can be thought of as physically represented by public art. In this way (neo)graffiti is created by a minority of citizens with the hopes of reclaiming their right to exist in urban public spaces despite layers of ideological exclusions.For this examination, graffiti and neo-graffiti have been compared to public art in order to reveal the ideological constructions of urban public spaces. How does graffiti interact with the construction of urban public spaces? How is graffiti similar to and different from public art? Which of these art forms better represents the public and city living? By comparing public art (neo)graffiti in Toronto, Ontario and Los Angeles California, the racialized and class-based exclusions present in R. Florida’s (2002) creative cities framework theorized by authors such as N. Smith (1996), Sharon Zukin (1996), and G. Standing (2011) can be revealed. Urban public spaces are carefully shaped by those in control (the government and corporations) with the intention of creating spaces and citizens within those spaces that can be a functioning part of their system. Graffiti and neo-graffiti act as a visual interruption to this system as represented by public art. In this way (neo)graffiti is created by a minority of citizens with the hopes of reclaiming their right to exist in urban public spaces despite the layers of exclusions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.306 · 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