Revanchism in the Canadian West: Gentrification and Resettlement in a Prairie City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a local, quasi-ethnographic, activist-oriented analysis of the City of Edmonton’s gentrification of an area just adjacent to the downtown core. Announced in 2005 and according to the teachings of self-proclaimed “go-to guru” Richard Florida, City officials have called this a “revitalization” of the “downtown east.” The process and its already apparent effects reveal the strategy as one towards a targeted re-appropriation of land and forced displacement of people in the interest of accumulating first cultural but ultimately financial capital. Through analysis of the City of Edmonton’s public meetings, as well as through the analysis of materials provided at those meetings and on City websites, we offer a critique of the City’s process, we debunk Florida’s “creative class” ideology, and finally, most importantly, we situate the gentrification of Edmonton’s downtown within the historical and local context. The particular process of gentrification of this particular Western Canadian city is congruent with the “original” and continual theft of the land from indigenous inhabitants. It also must be considered in light of the cases in which women, mostly aboriginal, have gone missing or been murdered, sometimes from this very neighborhood. Edmonton’s “revitalization” process hides its gentrification and hides an utter inattention to historical parallels and to contemporary issues of urgency.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".