MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2865318474 · doi:10.1177/2399654418784024

Enacting property: Making space for the public in the municipal library

2018· article· en· W2865318474 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lisa M. Freeman, Nick Blomley

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning C Politics and Space · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic spaceContext (archaeology)Property (philosophy)MandateSpace (punctuation)Political sciencePublic relationsPublic administrationSociologyEngineeringGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The space of the municipal library is changing. Libraries are no longer the traditional haven for quiet contemplation. In many cities across North America and the UK, municipal libraries have become a central social hub, a social service provider and a place of shelter for the marginal. In combination with technological advances and the hovering threat of budget cuts, the space of the library and the multiple publics it serves has becoming increasingly debated. We argue that the library and its changing mandate can be usefully understood through a property lens. The library is not only public space, we argue, but also public property. The manner in which the library, as public property, is enacted, is complicated most immediately by the competing conceptions of the ‘public’ that the library is to serve, but also by the ambivalent relationship between the ‘public’ and the ‘private’, and by the spatiality of the library itself. We demonstrate these complications in the context of changes to the sleeping policy in the Edmonton Public Library in Alberta, Canada (2014–2015).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0290.045
Scholarly communication0.0210.008
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning C Politics and SpaceSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207