MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901877277 · doi:10.32891/jps.v3i2.1110

Investing in Spaces: Luxury, Benevolence or Business?

2018· article· en· W2901877277 on OpenAlexaff
Nabila Alibhai, Elizabeth Thys

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Public Space · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Spaces through Art
Canadian institutionsAXYS Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsGovernment (linguistics)FaithGeneral partnershipSociologyWork (physics)Diversity (politics)Civil societyPolitical scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper highlights the use of spatial transformation to shift the way people experience and engage with community. In essence, physical spaces can make people feel safe, well and like they belong. Moreover, they can infuse purpose into their habitual public and work-life experience. The examples shared include working with the Yale School of Management to help students reflect on and visibly communicate their role as leaders in business and society; the property development company Broder using public art to respectfully build a relationship with a neighborhood they are investing in; YouTube using the process of art creation to celebrate and communicate diversity in the workplace and lastly a public private partnership that brought together the Government, civil society and the private sector to address the erosion of trust and fear as a result of violent extremism in Kenya through a public art installation called Colour in Faith. Nabila Alibhai and her collaborators work to shift culture through investing in the transformation of spaces using art and urban design.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.032
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Public SpaceSame topicPublic Spaces through ArtFrench-language works237,207