MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794227085 · doi:10.1111/jols.12081

‘This Land is Yours’: Ownership and Agency in the Sharing City

2018· article· en· W2794227085 on OpenAlex
Amelia Thorpe

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueJournal of Law and Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinciple of legalityAgency (philosophy)LawSociologyCommon ownershipPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As people try to remake cities in more collaborative ways, how do law and legality shape their actions and aspirations? Focusing on Lande , an organization that brings citizens together to transform vacant sites into parks, playgrounds, and productive gardens, this article finds a co‐constitutive relationship between law and citizen engagement. Established in Montreal, Canada, Lande drew inspiration and advice from organizations in New York and other cities internationally. Law was a key concern. Yet, more than the navigation of particular rules and regulations, interactions with international groups were crucial in facilitating engagement with legality more generally. Just as Lande tells the citizens of Montreal in a very grounded way that ‘this land is yours’, the relational and material ways in which the group's international precursors engage and (re)develop understandings of law and ownership provide powerful invitations to reshape the city and one's place in it.

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)0.000
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 score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.269 · 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