A Critique of the Creative Economy, Creative City and Creative Class From the Global South
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims are to identify and examine the inconsistencies and incongruities of the definitions of “creative economy”, “creative city” and “creative class” in their application to the study and the formulation of public policies in the Global South. The central argument points out that 1) the idea of “creative economy” seemed to conceive peripheral societies would be flat tables on which pre-given economic governance strategies for creative sectors could be replicated; 2) the concept of a “creative city” by the mainstream does not deal with the specific political-economic obstacles in the Global South, so it seems more feasible to define “creative city” from a culturally specific understanding of what creativity is and recognize the motivations for creating a creative city can come from different actors according to local circumstances; 3) the mobilization of creativity in the exercise of the profession is a weak criterion for defining the “creative class”, which motivates difficulties regarding the self-identification of individuals as members of it. They reproduce hierarchical regimes that exclude differences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".