MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025336238 · doi:10.1177/0042098020911875

Riverfront as a re-territorialising arena of urban governance: Territorialisation and folding of the Xindian River in Taipei metropolis

2020· article· en· W3025336238 on OpenAlexaff
Chih-Hung Wang, Yu-Ting Kao, Jo-Tzu Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocioeconomic Development in Asia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationCorporate governanceSubsistence agricultureGeographyFrontierFlood mythEconomic geographySociologyEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceBusinessArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper foregrounds the riverfront as a re-territorialising arena of urban governance. Through a long-term study of the Xindian River in Taipei metropolis, Taiwan, we illustrate how the riverfront can be the key locus where the expansion of the urban frontier is manifested through and intertwines with the transformation of nature. While first interwoven with everyday activities of subsistence, Xindian River was gradually turned into the periphery of the city and then green space for recreation, a process actualised through infrastructure aimed at flood control and waste treatment as well as other informal activities that challenge such measures. We propose that ‘territorialisation’ and ‘folding’ are notions that can grasp asymmetrical relations embedded in the physical landscape. We argue that a riverfront landscape composed by territorialisation and heterogeneous folding reveals that the emergence of a negotiable state–society relationship is pivotal in the production of the urban riverfront of Taipei.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban StudiesSame topicSocioeconomic Development in AsiaFrench-language works237,207