Living in Old Montreal: Residents’ perceptions of the effects of urban development and tourism development on local amenities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Urban development and tourism development have transformed urban environments within older neighbourhoods. While urban policies highlight the necessity of developing housing and mixed land use in tourism districts, previous studies have shown local effects of tourism and gentrification. In this paper, we focus on residents’ perceptions of the effects of urban and tourism development on local amenities such as shops, local social infrastructure, and public services. Our case study is the Old Montreal district, the population of which has more than tripled since the 1980s. We conducted a survey with 331 residents, and 20 semi‐structured interviews, analyzing their perception of Old Montreal as a place to live and their use of local amenities. Our findings revealed that, although urban and tourism development tend to limit the local amenities intended for residents, these are not necessarily perceived as incompatible with a residential living environment. In addition, residents adopt several strategies to satisfy their daily needs, but this behaviour contributes neither to the quality of the living environment, nor to a sense of place in the district. We propose to approach urban and tourism development in historic districts differently, by emphasizing the tensions and complementarities of uses rather than the incompatibility of functions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".