Politiken sozialer Mischung und die Produktivität von Rassismus im „gefährlichen Viertel“
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In Germany, strategies of “social mixing” aiming at the development of “disadvantaged” neighborhoods have been widely established in urban politics. Such strategies are oriented towards attracting middle class residents and therefore are discussed as drivers of displacement and exclusion of “the disadvantaged”. In our paper, we analyze such urban transformation processes focusing on the productivity of racial classifications. We present results of a research project in which we examine the appropriation of urban resources (such as housing, neighborhood infrastructures, and public spaces) by residents in such quarters. Using an interactivist approach “from below” and qualitative research methods, our case study on the former “declining”, currently “stagnating” quarter Essen-Altendorf shows the productivity of racial classifications in the residents' negotiations on “rules” in the closer neighborhood or on the use of public spaces. Yet, racializing articulations correspond with the policies of social mixing as well as with the observed selective policing of a “dangerous quarter”.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it