MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896681636 · doi:10.1111/cag.12495

Lofts in translation: Gentrification in the Warehouse District, Regina, Saskatchewan

2018· article· en· W2896681636 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Vanessa Mathews

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGentrificationContext (archaeology)HabitusDemographicsCosmopolitanismGeographySociologyConsumption (sociology)Regional scienceEconomyPolitical scienceEthnographyArchaeologyCivil engineeringEngineeringSocial scienceDemographyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper contributes to analyses of gentrification in smaller cities. Drawing on a case study of Regina, Saskatchewan's Warehouse District, I document the conversion of post‐industrial structures into loft condominiums and the rise of middle‐class consumption to support this residential base. I demonstrate that while the Warehouse District displays similarities with the paradigmatic case studies on loft living that dominate the literature (e.g., demographics, built form, gentrification), it also highlights how these processes and practices are adapted in peripheral spaces. While the resemblance to the loft scene in SoHo, New York is evident in loft districts internationally, it is less relevant in this smaller urban context. Ultimately, the chic cosmopolitanism of loft living is lost in translation, leaving an incoherent place identity as producers and consumers attempt to engage with global and local ideals of the loft habitus. This paper draws on a qualitative approach including semi‐structured interviews with loft residents, local businesses, and key stakeholders, and discourse analysis of planning and policy materials and media documents.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.867

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennesSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207