MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159285524 · doi:10.3138/uhr.48.2.06

The “Normalized Quiet of Unseen Power”: Recognizing the Structural Violence of Deindustrialization as Loss

2021· article· en· W3159285524 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Steven High

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban History Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeindustrializationPower (physics)Post-industrial societySociologyPolitical scienceGender studiesPolitical economyEconomyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the structural violence of deindustrialization and the urban losses that result. It is a global story of mass displacement and dispossession but also an intensely local one that has devastated the working-class. But much of this history is submerged under a dominant, postindustrial, discourse that instills not only a sense of inevitability but of progress and where the ravages of deindustrialization, when recognized at all, are safely contained to rust belt zones or inner-city areas. These twin processes of “invisibilization” can even co-exist within a metropolitan area like Montreal where deindustrialization’s lasting effects are at once too diffuse and too localized to be noticed, further privatizing the pain and hurt that results. In exploring the internalized despair produced by the structural violence of deindustrialization, the article invites us to consider the ways that public recognition or non-recognition structures the public conversation about what’s lost in mill or factory closings. Edward Said, among others, has asked us to interrogate the “normalized quiet of unseen power” when violence becomes largely invisible to us.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.023
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.294
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban History ReviewSame topicPolitical and Economic history of UK and USFrench-language works237,207