Urban Identity in (Post)Modern Cities: A Case Study of Kharkiv and Lviv
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
This article aims to highlight the results of an empirical study of urban identity that was conducted by the author in Kharkiv and Lviv. The theoretical underpinnings of this research are based on the ideas of Manuel Castells and Zygmunt Bauman, as well as others. They assert that under the conditions of (post)modern society, groups which are involved in one way or another in the global post-industrial economy interpret cities and their relationship with them in a variety of ways—in other words, their definitions of urban identity vary. The author’s hypothesis is generally confirmed that groups will interpret their connection to a city in distinct ways: representatives of different groups will differ in their interpretation of the question of what it means to be an “urbanite” or a “true [insert city name]-ian,” in their ways of participating in the resolution of urban issues, etc. The unique features of the sampled Ukrainian cities (Kharkiv, Lviv) are described. The confirmation of the hypothesis serves as an argument in favour of considering urban identity in the context of an “imagined community.” Under such consideration, a city comprises not a “local community” but an aggregate of groups that consider the city to be “theirs” and defend their “right to the city” based on their individual image of the world, which depends on their social, cultural, and economic conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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