MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916496197 · doi:10.1111/cico.12359

Urban Redevelopment, Cultural Philanthropy and the Commodification of Artistic Authenticity in Toronto

2019· article· en· W2916496197 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCity and Community · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommodificationGentrificationDowntownThe artsSociologySpace (punctuation)RedevelopmentReal estateCultural capitalAestheticsUrban regenerationCultural spaceCultural heritageMedia studiesPolitical scienceLawSocial scienceEconomyEconomic growthHistoryArtGeographyEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article offers a multiscalar, sociohistoric account of the spatial struggles of Toronto artists from 1970 until the present to secure affordable living and work space downtown that foregrounds the contemporary role of the cultural philanthropist–developer. It argues that the cultural capital of artists to identify and embody authenticity facilitated temporary spatial claims that supported the development of a local art scene on Queen Street West, but one that became dependent upon, yet vulnerable to, the sociospatial unevenness of cultural philanthropy. Benevolence in arts and culture is not distributed evenly across time and space. Instead, as the case study of the 401 Richmond arts hub reveals, benevolence in its alliances with the real estate market and property development is concentrated in individualized commitments to particular neighborhoods, buildings, and local relationships, which temporally and operationally constrains its policy–transforming potential.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.260 · 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