MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Wealth and Poverty of Cities

2019· book· en· W2996001081 on OpenAlexaff
Mario Polèse

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyEconomicsGeographyDevelopment economicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Much has been written about cities as engines of growth and prosperity. Cities have been centers of civilization since the beginning of history. A rich nation without cities is an impossibility. Yet, as this book explains, the central foundations of wealth and economic well-being are rooted in the attributes of nations and actions of national governments. If the nation does not work, nor will its cities. This book looks at the economy of cities through the lens of “The Ten Pillars of Urban Success,” covering a full range of policy concerns from top (i.e., sound macroeconomic management) to bottom (i.e., safe neighborhoods). Cities rich and poor around the world that are as different as New York, Vienna, Buenos Aires, and Port au Prince are examined. Urban success or failure almost always takes us back to the wise or unwise decisions of national and/or state governments. Urban success is about more than economics. Cities that have managed to produce livable urban environments for the majority of their citizens mirror the societies that spawned them. Similarly, cities that have failed are almost always signs of more deep-rooted failures. A socially cohesive city in a divided nation is an oxymoron. In the final chapter, the book proposes a critical look at America’s urban failures, its declining Rustbelt cities, and inner-city ghettos. Such failures should not have happened in the world’s richest nation. That they did is not only the sign of a deeper malaise, but also a warning to the wealthy urbanizing societies of tomorrow.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRegional Economics and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207