MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769326351 · doi:10.1111/gec3.12355

Toward a socially acceptable gentrification: A review of strategies and practices against displacement

2017· review· en· W2769326351 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

VenueGeography Compass · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentrificationDisplacement (psychology)Context (archaeology)EmpowermentSociologyOrder (exchange)Political scienceBusinessGeographyEconomicsPsychologyEconomic growthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article offers a systematic review of available studies on gentrification and displacement with the primary goal of identifying the few (relative to the number of publications) solutions or strategies being suggested for mitigating displacement. We categorize these strategies into 3 types: tenants' protection, controlling ownership and development, and community empowerment. Each strategy is accompanied by various tools which may differ from one context to another. Finally, proposing that displacement can be controlled, the article concludes that counteracting the negative effects of gentrification requires more than just reducing displacement. In other words, we believe that there are several issues beyond physical displacement to be considered in order to make gentrification socially acceptable.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.254 · 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