The publicness of space: exclusionary control of public and semi-public space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many contemporary North American cities, the boundaries and definition of public and private space have become ambiguous, a trend that is encouraged by the increasing privatization of the urban environment. Privatization of urban space is increasingly diminishing the social role of public space, and threatening the public realm. The ambiguity resulting from privatization is particularly apparent in the downtown pedestrian environment where privatized semi-public pedestrian environments threaten the concept as well as the physical and experiential qualities of the public realm. Calgary's Plus 15 system (a pedestrian skyway system) is an example of a semi-public pedestrian environment frequently perceived as public space, but that is managed as private or semi-private space. This Master's Degree Project reviews the impact that social control methods, such as laws, security, surveillance, and design measures, have on the publicness of space. Additional levels of control are prevalent in semi-public space, such as the Plus 15 system, compared to public space. The control of the Plus 15 system was critically analyzed to determine the connection between the control of space and the potential to create an exclusionary environment. It was determined that semi-public space is more exclusionary with regards to use by lower socio-economic class, and more specifically, homeless individuals compared to downtown Calgary' s public street level. Recommendations are discussed that promote a renewed commitment to the public realm in order to foster an inclusive and socially diverse urban environment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".