MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041794359 · doi:10.18192/potentia.v6i0.4417

Should there be a 'Right to the City'?

2015· article· en· W3041794359 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heather Lang

Bibliographic record

VenuePotentia Journal of International Affairs · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRight to the cityContext (archaeology)PhraseSpace (punctuation)SociologySet (abstract data type)Law and economicsLawHuman rightsPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsHistoryPoliticsPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Henri Lefebvre coined the phrase the ‘right to the city’ in 1968, which encapsulates a set of collective rather than individual rights. It is based on two principals for urban dwellers: the right to participate in decision-making in regard to the city and the right to appropriate or “physically access, occupy, and use urban space” (Purcell 2002, 103). This original social-philosophical discussion has recently evolved to include legal arguments in the context of a global system which espouses the supremacy of human rights. Though there is not anywhere with a functioning, Lefebvre-inspired “right to the city”, radical and incremental attempts to create its foundations are occurring in South America and common law jurisdictions.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePotentia Journal of International AffairsSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207