MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921286750 · doi:10.15273/jue.v9i1.8881

From Pedestrian Thoroughfare to Public Space: The Social Life of the Esplanade Underpass

2019· article· en· W2921286750 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hoa Van Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Undergraduate Ethnography · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUnderground infrastructure and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic spacePedestrianSpace (punctuation)NarrativePublic relationsWork (physics)SociologyArchitectural engineeringEngineeringCivil engineeringPolitical scienceComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the Esplanade Underpass, an underground thoroughfare in Singapore that supports a range of public users and uses, despite not being a formally planned or officially designated public space. The Esplanade Underpass serves as an interesting case study as most public spaces in Singapore are zoned and governed by regulations of various kinds. The Esplanade Underpass, however, is minimally subject to these forms of surveillance and control. This research asks: What are the characteristics of the Esplanade Underpass that set it apart from the narrative of order and control often imposed upon public spaces in Singapore?” Through participant observation and interviews, the study investigates the users and uses of the Underpass. The study reveals how a range of users of the Underpass adapt the physical space for various uses, consequently establishing a series of informal social norms. Through varied habitual uses, the Underpass has been transformed from a place of transit into a meaningful public space which possesses a vibrant social life. The study highlights the nuances of social engagement that can work to make spaces “public” and offers a novel understanding of informally formed public space in Singapore.

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 score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Undergraduate EthnographySame topicUnderground infrastructure and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207