MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898894671 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-12915

The Illuminated City: An Atlas of Islamic Space in Montreal

2018· dissertation· en· W2898894671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marie Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorshipIslamInvisibilitySpace (punctuation)VernacularPublic spaceMedia studiesGeographySociologyAestheticsHistoryPolitical scienceLawArtEngineeringArchaeologyArchitectural engineeringPhilosophyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many everyday Islamic spaces in the "West" are almost undetectable. In Montreal, zoning regulations, economic restrictions, and the recurring debate surrounding religious accommodations significantly impact how and where Muslim communities establish their places of worship. These buildings are present, yet often hidden in the physical urban fabric - which is deemed "secular" - that surrounds us. This thesis explores questions of visibility / invisibility, and secular / sacred space: what is it that we call the secular public space? How does it compare to religious space, and how permeable is it to the non-secular? Where does the sacredness of a place rest? How do the different places of worship in a city connect together? This research investigates this theological landscape as a vernacular that is repurposed into a religious space and place of a community, and studies ways to make these religious spaces visible, to reveal another landscape within Montreal.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.003

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207