MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Segmented Governance Patterns—Fragmented Urbanism: The Development of Guarded Housing Estates in Lebanon

2011· article· en· W2736574966 on OpenAlex
Georg Glasze

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueArab world geographer · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East Politics and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanismCorporate governanceContext (archaeology)Sine qua nonConfessionalEthnic groupPolitical sciencePolitical economySociologyGeographyLawPoliticsBusinessArchitecture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of private, guarded residential complexes on the outskirts of Lebanese cities asks for an explanation. On the one hand, some Lebanese commentators see them as a direct consequence of the war or interpret them as “traditional” ethnic-confessional segregation in a new disguise. On the other hand, international scientific discussion on the spread of this new kind of housing in many regions of the world is dominated by universalistic approaches. The conceptual framework of this case study is based on an intermediate approach. The concept of urban governance uncovers the segmented patterns of social interaction as an important context—a sine qua non—for the development of guarded residential complexes in Lebanon for two periods.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.230 · 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